Here are the materials in Rose v. Utah State Bar (D. Utah):
District of Utah
Prisoner Habeas Challenges to State of Utah Jurisdiction over Indian Country Fail
Here are the opinions in Reber v. Payne and Atkins v. Payne (D. Utah):
Update in Utah Stolen Indian Artifacts Case — Defendants’ “Expert” Allowed to Testify on Value of Objects
Here is an interesting development in United States v. Smith, the criminal case in Utah regarding the theft of Indian artifacts and other objects.
The defendants’ proposed expert witness (Dace Hyatt) on the value of the materials collected allegedly in violation of federal law will be allowed to testify, despite having no formal training on anthropology, archaeology, or anything else (not to mention lying in an affidavit about reviewing evidence in person when that evidence is locked away deep in the bowels of the BLM). Assuming the defendants still use this expert, cross-examination at trial will be very interesting. His testimony is that each object is valued at slightly less than $500, the jurisdictional minimum.
Here are the materials:
US Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
US Second Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
Defendants Opposition to Motion
Ute Nuisance Complaint against Questar Dismissed
Here are the materials:
DCT Order Dismissing Ute Nuisance Complaint
Federal Court Ruling on State Law Jurisdiction over Lands Held in Fee under the Ute Partition and Termination Act
Here is the most recent opinion in Questar Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Lambeth (D. Utah): Questar v Lambeth — DCT Order re State Law Claims.
An excerpt:
Under these provisions, the Subject Property was originally an allotment, encumbered bythe restriction on alienation and the trust relationship of the United States. However, under the Ute Partition and Termination Act, when Ms. Lambeth elected to receive treatment as a mixedblood member, the Secretary of the Interior was required to transfer the property to Ms. Lambeth in fee simple. Thus, Ms. Lambeth received unrestricted control of the Subject Property and the restrictions on the sale or encumbrance of the property, as well as the trust relationship of the United States, were removed upon the granting of the 1960 Patent. As a result, the Court finds that Ms. Lambeth had unrestricted fee title to the Subject Property.
Lambeth argues that additional briefing is required on the issue of how the fee patent could be issued. This question is answered by the Ute Partition and Termination Act. As stated,the Act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior “to immediately transfer to [a mixedbloodmember] unrestricted control of all other property held in trust for such mixed-blood member by the United States, and shall further remove all restrictions on the sale or encumbrance of trust or restricted property owned by such member of the tribe, and Federal supervision of such member and his property shall thereby be terminated.” This is precisely what happenedwith the issuance of the 1960 Patent. Therefore, no further briefing is required on this issue.
Federal Court Denies Ute Indian Nation Motion to Reconsider Decision Favoring Ute Distribution Corp.
Here are some of the materials in Ute Indian Nation v. Ute Distribution Corp. (D. Utah):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Ute Distrib. Corp. (March 12, 2010)
Federal Court Dismisses Indian Country Indictment for Reliance Upon Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions
Here are the materials in United States v. Shavanaux (D. Utah):
DCT Order Dismissing Shavanaux Indictment
Oklevueha Native American Church v. Holder RFRA Complaint
Here: Oklavueha NAC Complaint (D. Utah).
Federal Court Blocks Ute Tribe’s Efforts to Exclude QEP (Questar)
Here is the P.I. order in QEP v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah): DCT Order Granting QEP Preliminary Injunction.
The court noted:
Although the court would generally stay its proceeding in deference to the tribal system until appellate review was complete, exhaustion is not required “where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 856, n.21.
The court would stay its determination if the question of the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction rested on an analysis of the jurisdictional bounds set forth in Montana. But because there was a clear and unambiguous waiver of Tribal Court jurisdiction in the Agreement, the litigation in Tribal Court is patently violative of the parties’ written agreement and exhaustion is unnecessary. In addition, because QEP needs immediate relief as described below and cannot seek money damages from the sovereign Tribe, exhaustion would deprive QEP of an adequate remedy.
Briefs are here.
Utah Alleged Grave Robber Motion to Dismiss Indictment Rejected
Here are recent materials in United States v. Sommerville (D. Utah), over whether the defendant must have actual knowledge that certain artifacts are protected by the Archeological Resources Protection Act:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.