Here.
“You Hockey Puck” — Sad About Don Rickles
Here.
Here.
Here.
Possibly the critical portion of this article is the last paragraph, which confirms that Goldwater has absolutely no interest whatsoever in helping Indian children:
At Goldwater’s offices in Phoenix, Sandefur insisted that his case is about nothing more than the welfare of Indian children. “It was a white Congress in Washington, DC, that passed a law saying, ‘The best interest of all Indians is as follows.’ Isn’t that why we have the problems we have?” When asked if Goldwater is working with any Native American members of Congress to reform ICWA or improve the circumstances of Native children, Sandefur said no—he hadn’t heard anything about that.
Here:
Here (featuring two of my current or former students!):
The National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) Foundation is proud to announce its 2017 Bar Review Scholarship Recipients. The NNABA Foundation received an impressive pool of applications from Native American students representing Indian nations and law schools across the country. The Foundation is proud to support these students in the penultimate step to joining the legal profession: taking the bar exam. Scholarship recipients will receive $1,500 for bar review preparation services.
Congratulations to the 2017 NNABA Foundation Bar Review Scholarship Recipients, listed below in alphabetical order by last name.
“These students exemplify hard work, commitment to their communities and dedication to advancing justice for Native Americans. The NNABA Foundation is delighted to support them on their journeys into law practice,” said NNABA Foundation President Jennifer Weddle.
When you step off the dock onto Mackinac Island, you’re setting foot on a land with a long, and sometimes troubled, history for Michigan’s first people.
There are new efforts underway to get visitors to look past the fudge shops and the quaint homes, to appreciate the Native American history on this island they call “Great Turtle.”
Story is HERE.
More in a previous post here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Jackson:
Prior opinion in this case here.
In the California Supreme Court, here:
Lower court decision here.
Two part determination letter here: BIA Letter.
Here is the opinion in State v. Snyder:
An excerpt:
In 1974, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, as affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, took continuing jurisdiction over fishing disputes arising from the Treaty of Point Elliot and other treaties. Since then, the federal courts have not only interpreted these treaties but continue to supervise their application. The supreme court has held that the lower federal court rulings in this matter bind the State, state courts, private individuals like the Snyders, and organizations like the Snoqualmoo Tribe. We see no reason why we should not follow this guidance in the case of hunting rights.
Briefs:
Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corp.:
An excerpt:
The Nooksack Business Corporation (NBC) borrowed more than $15 million to finance construction of and improvements to a casino on Nooksack Indian Tribe land. 25 U.S.C. § 81(b) (Section 81) requires preapproval by the Secretary of the Interior for any agreement or contract that “encumbers” tribal land. NBC’s limited recourse loan is secured by a pledge of revenue to the lender. But because the lender’s right to collect pledged revenues does not deprive the tribe of its exclusive proprietary control of its land, the loan agreements do not encumber tribal land for purposes of Section 81.
Under the broad language of the loan agreements, the lender may execute upon future revenues and rents whether or not the facilities are used as a casino. Additionally, merger does not preclude the lender from executing upon assets pledged as security for the loan. And, consistent with our Supreme Court’s decision in a prior appeal between the lender and NBC, the state court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the lender’s right to enforce its judgment.
The loan agreement provides for attorney fees to the prevailing party. Because the lender is the prevailing party, it is entitled, to attorney fees on appeal.
Briefs:
You must be logged in to post a comment.