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.
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
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
And an order in Lomeli v. Kelly:
Lomeli v Kelly Order Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause Re- Contempt
Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):
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.
Lower court materials are here.
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 Declaration of Rick D. George Tribal Council Vice Chairman
You must be logged in to post a comment.