Sault Tribe Settles with Miller Canfield in Bouschor Case

From the Soo Evening News via Pechanga (and here, too):

A mediation agreement has netted the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians $1 million from the law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. as the firm opted to settle following a hard-bargained session lasting more than 12 hours Tuesday.

“This was a contested case,” said law firm CEO Michael Hartmann on Wednesday afternoon. “No one admitted liability.”
In extricating itself from the pending lawsuit in exchange for $1 million, Hartmann indicated both sides were satisfied with the resolution.

“Everyone thought it was in the best interest of the firm,” he explained.

“On behalf of the board of directors and myself, I’m confident to say this is the best possible outcome for our tribe and the status of the case,” said Tribal Chairman Darwin “Joe” McCoy in a press release issued shortly before 10 a.m. today. “I’m pleased we were able to hold one party responsible for its role in the litigation and that we are free to continue on with the other defendants, soon we can put this behind us as a tribe and move forward.”

The lengthy mediation saw the Sault Ste. Marie Tribal Board of Directors go in and out of open session throughout the day before the final deal was reached.

John Hatch, one of the few tribal members who monitored the day of mediation, said the board was unanimous in its decision.

“I think it was an excellent deal,” said Hatch. “The board did an excellent job.”

Hatch said not only did the Sault Tribe get some of its money back, but it also preserved the abuse of government civil suit against the former chairman, Bernard Bouschor.

His analysis coincides with this morning’s press release which states: “The settlement allows the Sault Tribe to recover a substantial amount of money without the uncertainty of a trial. It also preserves the tribe’s ability to continue its lawsuit against those most responsible for the unauthorized transfer of tribal funds to key employees”

The Sault Tribe has been looking to recover approximately $2.6 million which was distributed to upper-echelon employees in the wake of Bouschor’s 2004 failed re-election bid. Tribal representatives have contended that the payments were illegal and Bouschor did not have the authority to release those individuals with hefty severance packages.

Continue reading

What Indian Country Can Learn from Elena Kagan’s Senate Questionnaire

In short, not much. But she might be a little bit more knowledgeable about Indian law than I previously thought. But some signs suggest she will be hostile toward tobacco/smokeshop-related cases.

1. United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation

We already knew Kagan likely will have to recuse herself from this case, which will be argued in the October 2010 Term sometime. In her Senate questionnaire, she describes the case on page 142. Earlier this month, she addressed the judges of the Federal Circuit and described the case again (here, pages 5-6). She also mentioned, but did not discuss the Navajo Nation cases involving the Peabody Coal claims (page 7).

Interestingly, leading up to her description of the T.O.N. case, Kagan mentioned a 1906 Indian law case, United States v. Cherokee Nation, 202 U.S. 101 (1906). She noted that the first woman admitted to practice in the Supreme Court (and in the Federal claims court), Belva Lockwood, successfully argued this case on behalf of the Eastern Cherokees at the age of 75, and won over $7 million for the tribe (here, pages 4-5).

2. American Indian Empowerment Fund. She remains a member (here, page 2).

3. Native American Alumni Celebration (Oct. 2007)

An agenda is available here, pages 132-34. The agenda included “A Conversation with Dean Elena Kagan,” but unfortunately there are no notes or materials on that conversation.

4. Navajo Nation Supreme Court Oral Arguments (2006)

Press coverage of this event is here, pages 109-112. Then-Dean Kagan is quoted as saying, “In an age of global conflict we have much to learn from the Navajo peacemaking court system.” (page 111)

5. Tobacco Settlement Negotiations (1990s)

Apparently, while part of the Clinton Administration, Kagan became known as a “wonderwonk” in these negotiations (here, page 99).  She also helped to draft tobacco legislation for John McCain in 1996 (here, page 103). If for some reason one or more of the various cases involving the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement reaches the Court, a safe bet would be that she will be hostile toward any Indian or tribal immunity argument.

Continue reading

Tenth Circuit Rejects Osage Man Challenge to Property Tax Assessment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Prather v. Hedgecoth.

And the opening brief: Prather Opening Brief

Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Capital Murder Conviction

Kinda, somewhat interesting case arising on the Colville Reservation, where the defendant wasn’t indicted for more than 10 years after the crime — United States v. Gallaher. Here is the court’s take:

The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 conditionally eliminated the death penalty for Native American defendants prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act or the General Crimes Act, subject to the penalty being reinstated by a tribe’s governing body. See 18 U.S.C. § 3598. In 2005, a federal grand jury indicted defendant-appellant James H. Gallaher, Jr., for first degree murder, more than 14 years after he killed Edwin Pooler on the Colville Indian Reservation in eastern Washington. Because the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have not reinstated the death penalty, Gallaher argues that he is not subject to the death penalty and thus the five year federal statute of limitations for noncapital crimes applies to his offense. See id. §§ 3281-82. We disagree and hold that first degree murder remains a capital offense, regardless of whether capital punishment can be imposed in a particular case.

There was a dissenter (Judge Tashima), who argued:

In my view, the Federal Death Penalty Act removes first degree murder committed within the boundaries of “Indian country” from the realm of offenses punishable by death and delegates to the tribes the authority to determine the availability of the death penalty. See 18 U.S.C. § 3598. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation has not elected to make the death penalty available for first degree murder on the Colville Reservation. Thus, capital punishment has been clearly eliminated for the crime for which Gallaher was indicted. Because Gallaher has not been indicted for an “offense punishable by death,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3281, the five-year statute of limitations applies, see 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

Here are the materials:

Gallaher Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief in Gallaher

Gallaher Reply Brief

Opening Briefs in First Major Post-Carcieri Challenge to Fee to Trust–Updated

The case is Patchak v. Salazar (D.C. Cir.) and involves the DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi Indians. The land already is in trust.

Here are the opening briefs:

2010-04-09 Patchak Opening Brief

2010-05-10 Gun Lake Answer Brief (Filed)

02 Proposed Brief Amicus Curiae–NCAI

2010-05-10 U.S. Answer Brief

Lower court materials are here.

Tribal Per Caps Make Some Indians Healthier

From Indianz (JAMA Study on Per Caps and Health):

Members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians who received per capita payments from the tribe’s casino were less likely to abuse alcohol and marijuana, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Tribal members began receiving a share of gaming revenues in 1996. The study tracked Eastern Cherokee youth from 1993 through 2006 and found a link between well-being and the payments.

Tribal youth were better off as adults than older tribal members who did not grow up with the revenues, according to the study. And tribal youth fared “significantly” better as adults than non-Indians, researchers found.

The tribe operates the Harrah’s Cherokee Hotel and Casino in western North Carolina.

Get the Story:

Nc American Indians With Casino Income Fare Better (AP 5/18)

dré cummings on Media Bias and Indian Law

andré douglas pond cummings has posted his paper, “A Shifting Wind?: Media Stereotyping of American Indians and the Law,” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

An accurate historical narrative of the treatment imposed upon American Indians at the hands of the United States Government reveals a sordid tale. The portrayal and stereotyping of North America’s indigenous civilizations by the United States’ popular media emulates this foul history. The U.S. legal system’s contemptuous judicial decrees and legal policies promulgated for more than two centuries testifies to the Government’s and the popular media’s hostility and historical abuse toward American Indians. Unfortunately for historical (and modern) purveyors, each of these abhorrent deeds is memorialized for the world to read and see in innumerable broken treaties, motion pictures, literary works and judicial reporters.

In recent decades, historians and scholars, both American Indian and non-native alike have skillfully documented the deceitful trail of broken promises and near annihilation. In addition, the popular U.S. media and the U.S. legal system have intersected curiously over the years in connection with a tag-team treatment of and discrimination against American Indians. The media, including print advertising, newspapers, literary works, television, online sources and motion pictures, seems to have borrowed historical stereotypical characterizations from the judiciary and U.S. government policies, and vice versa, simultaneously portraying American Indians as ferocious and savage yet simple and helpless. Proven instances of governmental abuse and discrimination, hostile portrayal and stereotyping by the media and contemptible judicial decrees are innumerable.

In very recent years, there is some evidence that the winds are shifting. Slowly and steadily, segments of the mass media seem to be trending toward a more honest historical account of U.S. history, and the portrayal of American Indians is becoming more reflective of reality and humanity. In the past decade, encouraging signs that the wind is shifting have signaled a potential sea change in the way that American Indians are presented to the United States public through the media and the law.

That said, favorite American Indian stereotypes and comfortable discriminations die hard. As the law and media stumble forward awkwardly, attempting to get it right, an assortment of U.S. contingencies, including professional sports franchises and American Universities, cling desperately to time-worn typecasts and hostile imagery.

While a veritable candelabra of options exist when attempting to describe the shameful historical treatment of American Indians, the following three brief snapshots will be presented to capture the essence of that treatment and to contemplate any further change in the curious intersection between the media and the law. The three snapshots will include a glimpse of the historical United States Government treatment of American Indians, followed by a look at the traditional stereotyping of American Indians by U.S. mass media and finally a brief examination of a few of the historically offensive judicial decrees handed down by federal judges. Thereafter an examination of the connection between the modern media and the law will be undertaken to assess whether a sea change is truly upon us.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Sharp v. United States

Here is the order list for today (the reference to Sharp is on page 10).

SLAPP Lawsuits and the Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

There’s an interesting exchange in a District of North Dakota case (Laducer v. DISH Network) involving an allegation that a non-Indian-owned business claim that a tribal court has no jurisdiction over it is actually a SLAPP lawsuit. A SLAPP lawsuit — strategic lawsuit against public participation — often is a frivolous countersuit by a corporate defendant against an individual plaintiff designed to bleed the plaintiff’s finances dry, effectively ending the original case. In this instance, it doesn’t appear that the facts support the claim.

But what if an Indian plaintiff brings a legitimate claim against a non-Indian in tribal court, and the defendant frivolously brings a federal court action to shut down the tribal court action? The non-Indian likely would not be subject to Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous claim because the Supreme Court’s Montana jurisprudence is so negatively swayed against tribal jurisdiction that even easy cases are not easy (see the Water Wheel case). Any non-Indian defendant can bleed a tribal plaintiff dry.

Here are the materials:

Brian Laducer Motion to Dismiss

DISH Network Response

Brian Laducer Reply

Opening Brief in Water Wheel v. LaRance

Very important case to watch.

Here: Tribal Court Brief

Lower and tribal court materials are here.