Link: Memorandum
The audit identified a total of $1,440,748 in questioned costs, as well as the need for increased oversight by USBR. OIG offers six recommendations to help USBR resolve the questioned costs and improve its operations with LBST. USBR agreed with all six recommendations and will begin negotiations with LBST to recoup the unallowable costs.
Here are the materials in Sullivan v. Harrah’s Operating Company (D.S.C.):
Here is the audit page, and the audit itself.
From the description:
We audited the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe’s (LBST) interim incurred costs on Cooperative Agreement No. R95AV60020 with the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The agreement was issued by USBR for operation, maintenance, and administrative activities associated with the Lower Brule Rural Water System, which serves tribal and nontribal customers in southwestern South Dakota.Our audit identified a total of $1,440,748 in questioned costs, as well as the need for increased oversight by USBR. We offer six recommendations to help USBR resolve the questioned costs and improve its operations with LBST. USBR agreed with all six recommendations and will begin negotiations with LBST to recoup the unallowable costs.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Karuk Tribe v. Stelle.
Briefs are here.
Here is the May 18 shortlist. Here is yesterday’s list. There is some overlap but there is a new list post-election.
If you look around, you’ll see some profiles of the potential nominees (kinda) advocating for that person. Here are some examples of profiles of some of the more moderate candidates: Bloomberg profiled Joan Larsen; Allison Eid profiled here. Given the emphasis of the presumptive President-Elect on media, it seems plausible if not downright likely that the nominee will be the person that will generate the most attention on TV. Perhaps that means if none of these potential candidates generate enough media excitement (and yes that includes intense controversy) then we might not see any of them nominated. (Former?) #NeverTrump-er Don Willett (profiled here) might be the best bet because he is already an internet star (in legal circles anyway).
For all we know today, the presumptive President-Elect is trolling Dems (and maybe some Rs) to learn which of the people on the shortlist is most offensive, and therefore generates the most controversy and media attention.
Here is “Trump Adviser Says He’s Not Privatizing Tribal Land” from Law360.com. Rep. Mullin’s full statement is here. An excerpt:
By removing public-land restrictions on Indian trust land, such as the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), we are not “privatizing” Indian land. We must also remove the barriers from the decision-making process and stop forcing tribes to ask permission from federal entities like the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Prior coverage here. Rep. Mullin’s quote there:
“We should take tribal land away from public treatment,” said Markwayne Mullin, a Republican U.S. Representative from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who is co-chairing Trump’s Native American Affairs Coalition. “As long as we can do it without unintended consequences, I think we will have broad support around Indian country.”
This “privatization” talk is unlikely to end here. Anti-Indian advocates won’t have to look very hard to find Indians and others who would sympathetic to something akin to “privatization.”
Cathay Y.N. Smith has published “Oral Tradition and the Kennewick Man” (PDF) in the Yale Law Journal Forum.
An excerpt:
On the eve of the upcoming repatriation of the Kennewick Man, this Essay focuses on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ summary rejection of the oral-tradition13 evidence introduced by Native American claimants in Bonnichsen v. United States which, as we now know, was ultimately more reliable than the then-available written historical and scientific records upon which the court relied. Courts disadvantage Native American claimants when they summarily reject oral-tradition evidence and prohibit “a major source of their knowledge, transmitted orally, across time, and in a distinctive style, [from being] meaningfully . . . entered as evidence, with the same consideration as written historical evidence.”14 Furthermore, courts’ inconsistent treatment of oral tradition also results in uncertainty and deprives Native American claimants of clear guidelines on what evidence they should or should not submit to prove their claims. This Essay suggests four factors for courts to consider on a case-by-case basis in the future to evaluate the probative value of oral-tradition evidence. It then proceeds to examine the inconsistent treatment of oral tradition evidence by U.S. courts, and urges courts to employ a balanced approach and adopt the factors offered in this Essay when evaluating Native American oral tradition in legal cases involving Native Americans claimants.
Download(PDF): Principal Attorney Job Vacancy Announcement
The Navajo Nation Department of Justice is seeking applicants for the vacant Principal Attorney position in the Tax & Finance Unit. Please see attached Job Vacancy Announcement. If interested, please contact Jana Werner, Assistant Attorney General, at (928) 871-6933 or jwerner@nndoj.org.
Here are the materials in United Indian Health Services v. Su (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co. (N.D. Ill.):
An excerpt:
In that briefing, the defendant’s primary position was that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from establishing standing. Its secondary position was that plaintiff did not qualify as an Indian arts and crafts organization under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 IACA. Both arguments were rejected as non-starters. Native Am. Arts, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74187, 2015 WL 3561439, at *5-7. An intemperate opponent might have called them frivolous, but the mere fact that a position is a loser does not make it frivolous.
Another:
As for this time, however, it’s worth noting that the defendant was unable to mount a challenge to plaintiff’s standing until six years into this litigation; that tends to further undermine defendant’s position that this was an obvious flaw in the plaintiff’s suit and one that plaintiff should have readily conceded and should have dropped its suit early on. Indeed, if it were such a frivolous suit it would seem that defendant could have put together a successful motion for summary judgment based on the standing issue some time ago, thereby avoiding many of the costs and expenses of which it now complains.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.