Nooksack COA Issues Opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly Contempt Appeal

Here:

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opening Brief re Contempt of Court

Lomeli v Kelly COA Contempt Response Brief of Appellees

Lomeli v Kelly COA Contempt Reply Brief re Contempt of Court

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opinion re Contempt

Lower court order here.

Nooksack Tribal Dismisses Adams v. Kelly II

Here:

Adams v Kelly II Plaintiffs’ Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss

Adams v Kelly II Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss

Adams v Kelly II Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly II Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Opening Appellate Brief in Lomeli v. Kelly — Contempt Matter in Nooksack Disenrollment Dispute

Here:

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opening Brief re Contempt of Court

Lower court order here.

Nooksack Disenrollments under Resolution 13-111 Enjoined

Here:

Roberts v Kelly Order Permanently Enjoining Disenrollment Proceedings

COA materials here.

Nooksack COA Strikes Down Disenrollment Procedures

Here is the opinion in Roberts v. Kelly:

Roberts v Kelly COA Opinion

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials are here.

Updates to Various Nooksack Disenrollment Cases

Here are the new materials in St. Germain v. Kelly — the Christmas TRO:

St Germain v Kelly Denial Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

St Germain v Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

St. Germain v Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith

St Germain v Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata

St. Germain v Kelly Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion of Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Kelly I:

Adams v Kelli I Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly I Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly I Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly I Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Kelly II — MLK removal of two council members:

Adams v Kelly II Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary InjunctionWrit of Mandamus

Adams v Kelly II Councilperson Michelle Roberts Declaration

Adams v Kelly II Declaration of Chairman Robert Kelly Jr

Adams v Kelly II Motion for Preliminary Injunction-Writ of Mandamus

Adams v Kelly II Reply Re Motion for Preliminary Injunction-Writ of Mandamus

Adams v Kelly II Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction – Writ of Mandamus

And an order in Lomeli v. Kelly:

Lomeli v Kelly Order Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause Re- Contempt

Nooksack COA Rules against Nooksack Disenrollees

Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opinion

An excerpt:

This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.

We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the  relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the  few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.

Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess  the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if  we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.

The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.

The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:

The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Cotut recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.

Briefs are here and here.

Lower court materials are here.

Nooksack COA Briefing in Roberts v. Kelly Complete

Here:

Roberts v Kelly COA Opening Brief of Appellants

Roberts v Kelly COA Response Brief of Appellees

Roberts v Kelly COA Reply Brief of Appellants

Lower court materials here.

Opening Nooksack COA Brief in Roberts v. Kelly

Here:

Roberts v Kelly COA Opening Brief of Appellants

Lower court materials here.

Nooksack Disenrollment Update — New Case Filing, Adams v. Kelly — Briefs in Tribal Court Appeal

Here are the briefs in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Lomeli v Kelly Opening Brief of Appellants

Lomeli v Kelly COA Response Brief of Appellees

Lomeli v Kelly COA Reply Brief of Appellants

And a new case filing, Adams v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):

Adams v Kelly Motion for TRO

Adams v Kelly Defendants’ Opposition to to Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly Declaration of Rick D. George Tribal Council Vice Chairman

Adams v Kelly Amended Reply Re Motion for TRO

Adams v Kelly Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO