Belmont v. Kelly – Page 2

Repeatedly, the Court has observed such tactics by Defendants: They rely upon case law where Defendants and their counsel have access to the full record of the case, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without approval by Tribal Council, a majority of whom are Defendants in this lawsuit. They rely upon statutes where Defendants and their counsel have full access to the statutes, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without Tribal Council approval. E.g., after Defendants claimed that the recall option is open to Plaintiffs, the Council declined to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of amended Title 60, setting forth recall procedures. And most recently, Defendants delegated to themselves authority for disciplining advocates in the Tribal Court and then, without providing notice and opportunity to be heard, they disbarred attorneys representing their adversaries in litigation.

Update: News coverage here — “Judge rules ‘biased’ tribal council denied disbarred lawyer due process“

News Profile of Nooksack Disbarment Issue

March 17, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Nooksack leaders disbar lawyer fighting tribal disenrollments” from the Seattle Times.

And another pleading in Belmont v. Kelly:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Notice for Permission to FIle an Interlocutory Appeal

Update in Nooksack Disbarment Drama

March 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Fifth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Reply to Response to Motion for Judicial Notice by Pro Se Plaintiff

Nooksack Tribe Response to Tribal Court on Disbarment of Galanda Firm

March 14, 2016March 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Response to Motion for Judicial Notice

Update (3/18/16) — the tribe sent the attachments to this filing:

Additional Update on Nooksack Disenrollments; Did Tribe Bar Plaintiff’s Counsel from Proceeding with Disenrollment Defense?

March 8, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Belmont v. Kelly Case Management Order Re Motion for Judicial Notice

Belmont v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S Galanda

Belmont v. Kelly Fourth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Motion for Judicial Notice

The first document above references Nooksack council resolutions 16-27 and 16-28. 16-27, enacted on February 24, provides:

Whenever the Tribal Council becomes aware that any advocate’s behavior and/or practices reflect so poorly upon the proper administration of justice before the Nooksack Tribal Court of the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Tribal Council may revoke any privileges provided to such person(s) and bar them from further practice in any administrative tribunal before the Nooksack Indian Tribe or proceeding before the Nooksack Tribal Court. Tribal Council may hold such hearings as necessary to ensure that such behavior and/or practices are proven; or, as may be necessary to correct such past behavior and/or practices.

In the judicial order above, the court described 16-28:

On the same date, February 24, 2016, the Nooksack Tribal Council enacted Resolution #16-28, barring Gabriel Galanda and other attorneys in the Galanda Broadman law firm from practicing in the Nooksack Tribal Court and from engaging in business on Nooksack Tribal lands.

The court ordered the tribal defendants to produce an affidavit describing the process offered the Galanda firm before issuing 16-28, on the theory that the Indian Civil Rights Act requires at least some process.

We will continue to observe the troubling doings at Nooksack.

Update in Nooksack Disenrollment; Tribe’s Reconsideration Motion Denied

March 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Preliminary Injunction Motion

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Reconsideration

Belmont v. Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

Belmont v. Kelly Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Reconsideration

Prior proceedings in this matter here.

Nooksack 306 Allowed to Vote in Elections While IBIA Review is Pending

January 27, 2016January 27, 2016Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Belmont v Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Belmont v Kelly Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Belmont v Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Belmont v Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Link to decision coverage in The Bellingham Herald here.

Nooksack Tribal Court has upheld the voting rights of over 300 Nooksack members facing disenrollment over a controversial ordinance passed in 2014. While the federal review of that ordinance drags along, the Tribe requested that contested members be prevented from voting in Tribal elections.

Judge Susan Alexander wrote that the marked members were allowed to vote in 2014 when their enrollment was in doubt, but now the Tribe has unilaterally changed their minds to protect open seats in this year’s general election.