Here is “Genocide: A Year In The Life of The Nooksack 306.”
Additional news coverage here.
tribal membership
Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
56 Federal Motion for Summary J
83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion
87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J
An excerpt:
For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.
Fourth Suit Challening Nooksack Tribal Member Disenrollments Fails
Here are the updated materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v. Kelly TRO Motion
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Michelle Roberts
St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Rudy St. Germain
St Germain v. Kelly Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining ORder
The complaint is here.
Fourth Nooksack Tribal Court Complaint in Disenrollment Dispute; IGRA Violations Alleged
Here is the complaint:
Rudy St Germain v Kelly Complaint For Prospective Equitable Relief
And a press release:
Nooksack 306 Deprived Of Christmas Support
Deming, WA – Today the Nooksack 306 were forced to file yet another Tribal Court lawsuit, after it became public that on December 3, the Nooksack Tribal Council Faction led by Chairman Bob Kelly voted via secret “poll” to exclude the 306 families from $250 in Christmas support.
The families have asked the Nooksack Tribal Court to stop the Kelly Faction from excluding 306 families from the distribution, which they intend to make starting this Thursday, December 12.
“We are disgusted but not surprised that Bob Kelly and his followers would now deprive our families from Christmas support,” said Nooksack 306 family spokesperson Moreno Peralta. “The holidays are a struggle for many of us, and they know that. This is just pure insult that is being added to the deep injury we’ve already suffered this year.”
Tribal member comments on the Tribe’s Facebook page confirm that Nooksack “families in need” could really use the Christmas monies.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the equal protection clauses in the Nooksack Constitution and federal Indian Civil Rights Act, as well as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which prevents tribes from distributing gaming revenues on a per capita basis without a federally-approved revenue allocation plan and/or in discriminatory fashion.
The Nooksack Tribe does not have any such revenue allocation plan. The resulting violations of IGRA could result in the National Indian Gaming Commission levying civil fines against the Tribe up to $25,000 per distribution and/or closing the Tribe’s two gaming facilities.
New Scholarship on Tribal Membership and UNDRIP
Shin Amai and Kate Buttery have posted “Indigenous Belonging: A Commentary on Membership and Identity in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People,” forthcoming in Oxford Commentaries on International Law: A Commentary on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to determine their own membership is crucial to the survival of indigenous groups and for their ability to meaningfully exercise their right to self-determination. This chapter will begin with a discussion of who indigenous peoples are, and will then proceed to review the specific provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration) as they pertain to indigenous-determined group membership and duties: Articles 9 (right to belong); 33 (right to determine membership); 35 (right to determine responsibilities of members); and 36 (right to maintain relations across borders). Together, these provisions reinforce the right of indigenous peoples to define themselves, both in terms of membership and geographic scope. These rights are not absolute, however, and are constrained by Articles 44 (gender equality) and Article 46 (compliance with international human rights standards).
N.C. Trial Court Concludes First Generation Eastern Band Cherokee Descedent a Non-Indian for Criminal Jurisdiction Purposes
Part 1: Update on Tribal Membership/Disenrollment Issues at Grand Ronde — Complaint Filed
Here is the complaint in Williams v. Leno (Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Tribal Ct.):
Williams v Leno Grand Ronde Tribal Court Complaint For Sanctions And Declaratory Relief
And the accompanying press release:
Lawsuit Filed Against Officials of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Challenging Illegal Enrollment Audit and Resulting Disenrollment Proceedings
Grand Ronde, OR – An ethics lawsuit has been filed in Grand Ronde Tribal Court against top officials of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde regarding the proposed disenrollment of as many as 1,000 tribal members. The lawsuit names the Tribal Council Chairman Reyn Leno and Enrollment Department Head Penny Deloe and alleges that they breached tribal law by disclosing members’ enrollment records and personal information to a third-party consulting firm in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Part 2: Update on Tribal Membership/Disenrollment Issues at Grand Ronde — Tribe Statement
Here is a statement from the tribe:
The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde is conducting an enrollment audit. The audit fulfills one of the tasks assigned in the Tribal Strategic Plan for 2010, which was adopted in August of 2009. That plan was formulated after nearly two years of development that began with a Strategic Futures conference in 2007 involving Tribal leaders and members. The plan directed Enrollment to audit all enrollment files and applications, track reasons for denials, and audit blood quantum records with the goal of strengthening the Grand Ronde Family Tree.
Recently some statements have cropped up on social media sites regarding the Tribe’s Enrollment audit. One of them even featured the Tribe’s emblem and could have led people to believe it was an official statement from the Tribe. It was not. In addition, the statements contain extremely misleading and false information. For example, the statement that up to 20% of the Tribe is being disenrolled is simply not true. Audit proceedings are ongoing and in fact, over the last several months a number Tribal members and their families. have provided the necessary information to clear up inconsistencies in their files and resolve issues related to their enrollment.
Tribal Council cannot make any specific comments on the Enrollment Audit until audit proceedings have been completed. The Tribal Council does not see enrollment files until an Enrollment Committee recommendation is presented.
There is an established process under the Enrollment Ordinance for addressing loss of membership that includes working with Enrollment Staff, then hearings before the Enrollment Committee, a hearing before Tribal Council., and ultimately an appeal to Tribal Court and the Tribal Court of Appeals.Over the years our Tribal membership, through Constitutional amendments, has consistently pushed for tightening our membership requirements. As elected officials the Tribal Council took an oath of office to uphold the Tribal Constitution and the laws of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. In that same pledge, the Council swore that they would perform all duties required of them by the Constitution and the laws of the Tribe. The Council knows this process is not any easy one for the Tribal community But the Council is committed to getting through it with diligence and compassion.
We also attach an email we received from the tribe regarding our previous post, the contents of which we received from a reliable source, but apparently there was a misunderstanding on our part:
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
On Nov. 19 you posted an article regarding the Grand Ronde Tribe and some disenrollment actions. The article is one that has been posted by an individual on several social media sites. It is false and misleading. I am troubled to see it on Turtle Talk, a site that represents Michigan State University’s Indigenous Law Center and one that holds credibility in the eyes of many readers, both Native and non-Native. Here is the actual statement from the Grand Ronde Tribe on the current issue. I hope you will see fit to correct the misrepresentation on Turtle Talk.
Sincerely,
Siobhan Taylor
Public Affairs Director
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde
We always strive to give equal time to parties in dispute, and generally do not take sides. We let the material speak for itself.
Opening Nooksack COA Brief in Roberts v. Kelly
Star-Tribune Coverage of White Earth Constitutional Referendum
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.