Here.
More details here.
Via Pechanga.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Federal Trade Commission Amended Complaint against Martin Webb’s Payday Financial Entity
Here is the complaint in FTC v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.).
Other docs are here at the FTC site:
March 7, 2012
- Amended Complaint for Civil Penalties, Injunctive, and Other Equitable Relief
- News Release
September 12, 2011
- Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief
- Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Equitable Relief and an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue
- Plaintiff’s Exhibits In Support of Its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Volume 1 – PX01 through PX06)
- Plaintiff’s Exhibits In Support of Its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Volume 2 – PX07)
- Stipulated Preliminary Injunction
- News Release
News Coverage of Whiteclay Suit: “Gold Mines in Hell”
Here.
Whiteclay, Nebraska. Population 14, exists only to sell alcohol to Native Americans already reeling from its damage. / Photo by Stephanie Woodard
Additionally, the reporter, Stephanie Woodward, conducted three interviews with Indian country professionals (Diane Garreau, Frank LaMere, Danialle Rose) on Indian child welfare in the aftermath of the NPR profile from last year.
Illinois Suit against On-Reservation Payday Lenders (Martin A. “Butch” Webb)
Here is the complaint in Jackson v. Payday Financial LLC (Ill. Cir.):
Jackson v Payday Financial Complaint
Here is a description of the defendant:
Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction of Juvenile; Member of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Here is the opinion in United States v. B.A.D.:
J.R. LaPlante Named State Tribal Relations Secretary
Here is the article.
Congrats to J.R.!!!!
HuffPo: ACLU Investigating Cheyenne River Sioux IHS
Here is the post, titled “Pregnant Sioux Women Face ‘Hell-Rides’ to Hospital, Induced Labors — and the ACLU Wants to Know Why.” An excerpt:
When I read my baby books, they said I should discuss my birth plan with my doctor and get a tour of the hospital,” said a new mother from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, in South Dakota. “But there was nothing for me. Not even a few Lamaze classes. Just congratulations and good luck.”
She and other pregnant women
ACLU FOIA Suit against IHS re: Reproductive Health Care
Here is the complaint: ACLU v IHS Complaint.
Here is the commentary from the ACLU lawyers (article here) (h/t Indianz):
By Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Staff Attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project & Robert Doody, Executive Director, ACLU of South Dakota
“They treat us just like guinea pigs when it comes to Indian Health Services.” That’s how one woman on the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation described the birth of her second child. She is not alone. Today, the ACLU and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a Freedom of Information of Act (FOIA) lawsuit against Indian Health Services (IHS), seeking information about the provision of reproductive health care services to the women of the Cheyenne River Sioux.
For nearly a decade, the women of the Cheyenne River Sioux — most of whom depend on IHS for their health care — have had to travel at least 90 miles to Pierre, South Dakota, over poorly maintained roads, to be able to give birth at the nearest hospital with an IHS contract (the next closest hospital is 180 miles away). But even worse is the treatment they describe once they get there.
Many women report that they are being told to forgo natural labor and delivery, and instead accept medication to induce labor, either on or before their due dates, at a time selected exclusively by their doctor. They are given little or no counseling — indeed, many women say that the first time their doctor spoke to them about induction of labor was on the day they were induced. One young woman told us that shortly after learning she was to be induced, she asked her doctor to wait just one day so that her mother could be with her during the birth of her first child. Her doctor refused.
S.D. Supreme Court Reverses Termination of Parental Rights in ICWA Case
The South Dakota Supreme Court in People ex rel. J.I.H. held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the rights of a Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe parent should be terminated.
An excerpt:
The trial court’s finding that termination of Father’s rights was the least restrictive alternative and in the children’s best interests hinged on Father’s incarceration. We recognize that “when assessing what options are available to prepare the parent for the return of a child, incarceration narrows the available options.” D.G., 2004 SD 54, ¶ 17, 679 NW2d at 502. Nonetheless, “[t]he decision to terminate requires evidence of sufficient magnitude to convince the trial court that the best interests of the children require the breakup of the family unit .” In re S.S., 334 NW2d 59, 61 (SD 1983) (emphasis added). “If, on a review of the record, it appears that the state’s compelling interest in the well-being and welfare of the children can reasonably be [e]nsured by less intrusive means, we must order that those alternatives first be implemented.” S.R., 323 NW2d at 888.
The record indicates that Grandmother was willing to be a long-term placement option for these children. Her home study had been approved, and only one final requirement remained for her to become a registered foster care provider. Grandmother’s sister also showed interest in being a placement option. Neither of these two possibilities was explored. Father was scheduled for release from jail in December 2008, which was seven months away from the date of the dispositional hearing. Due to his limited incarceration period, legal guardianship would have been a less restrictive alternative until Father was able to care for his children.
Notably, the children’s attorney did not advocate for termination of Father’s rights, and it cannot be ignored that the ICWA expert testified that termination of Father’s parental rights, at that time, was premature. We agree. Based on the circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights.
Eighth Circuit Upholds Major Crimes Act Conviction
In United States v. Antelope, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal of a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, who had pled guilty below. He argued on appeal that since he had also been prosecuted in tribal court, the government had violated the double jeopardy clause.
Here is the opinion.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.