Link to news here.
Excerpt:
Fran devoted her legal career to asserting the rights of Indian tribes and worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for Native American people. Prior to joining Hobbs Straus as a partner in 2002, she was a partner at Morisset, Schlosser, Ayer & Jozwiak.
Download PDF: Belmont v. Kelly Order Denying Motion to Expand Jurisdiction, Gladstone v. Kelly REJECTED Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Link to previous posts here.
And a pleading from one of the defendants, Johnny Naize:
Here is the opinion in Parm v. National Bank of California NA.
2017 SUMMER LAW CLERKS
Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP (“FPM”) is a nationwide firm dedicated to the practice of Federal Indian Law. FPM represents Native American tribes and organizations in a wide spectrum of areas including business transactions, litigation, and governmental affairs.
FPM is seeking applications from second year law students for 2017 Summer Law Clerks for offices in Louisville, Colorado; Omaha, Nebraska; and Sacramento, California. Applicants must be enrolled in an ABA accredited law school. Experience or coursework in tribal and Federal Indian Law is required. Applicants must also possess excellent analytical, research and communication skills, and the ability to work well independently and as a team member in a fast-paced environment. FPM offers a competitive hourly wage for a 10 – 12-week summer position.
Applicants should e-mail a cover letter, resume, a writing sample, and law school transcripts to Ann Hacker at ahacker@ndnlaw.com no later than September 30, 2016. Your cover letter should indicate your preferred office location and addressed to Ann Hacker. If your preferred office location includes our Colorado office a separate cover letter needs to be addressed to the attention of Thomas W. Fredericks.
For additional information about FPM, visit our website at www.ndnlaw.com.
Here is the order in Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Nev.):
Most of the pleadings are sealed so this is what we have.
Here is “A History Lesson“:
An excerpt:
Reformers are still trying to save Indian children by taking them away from Indian families and tribes. Mr. Sandefur would rather force Indian children into state court systems by undoing ICWA, perhaps because they can be more easily plucked from state systems by the private adoption market. There have even been calls to greatly expand the number of Indian children in foster care. Literally no ethical person seeks to put more children in foster care. Studies show what should be inherently understood—plucking children out of a community they know and putting them in stranger foster care is actively harmful to kids (there’s a reason Casey Family Programs is putting a billion dollars into reducing the number of kids in foster care). Eighty percent of child welfare removals are due to neglect. Our children do deserve better: better services, better wrap around care, a better understanding of the mental health issues and chemical dependency that plagues their parents. They don’t deserve to be taken from everything familiar—their neighborhood, schools, and extended family—because of system failures in our society.
Imagine a child welfare proceeding where the judge meets with the parties for two hours before the hearing to engage in problem solving and to brainstorm creative ideas to best serve the child, followed by a formal hearing that may last two or more hours. Compare that to a state court hearing that lasts mere minutes, and where there are systematic financial pressures for “permanency,” in other words, to place children in foster care, terminate parental rights quickly, and adopt them out. It’s not even a comparison.
Here is the opinion in Alvarez v. Lopez.
An excerpt:
We consider whether an Indian tribe violated a criminal defendant’s rights by failing to inform him that he could receive a jury trial only by requesting one.
The answer was yes. One judge dissented.
The same panel had held in 2014 that the petitioner had failed to exhaust tribal remedies. Those materials here.
The panel issued this opinion on rehearing. Here are the rehearing stage materials:
Here:
Here is the opinion in Akina v. State of Hawai’i.
An excerpt:
These appeals concern recent efforts by a group of Native Hawaiians to establish their own government. The plaintiffs are Hawaii residents who challenge that process. They appeal the district court’s order denying their request for a preliminary injunction to stop activities related to the drafting and ratification of self-governance documents. Separately, another group of Hawaii residents appeals the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal of the preliminary injunction order as moot, and we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to intervene.
Briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.