Here are updated materials:
Ute Indian Tribe Motion to Dismiss
Pro Se Defendants Motion to Dismiss
Pro Se Defendants Removal and Remand Brief
Pro Se Defendants Suppmental Motion on Retaliation
Poulson Second Omnibus Response
The complaint and tribal court materials are here.
Here are the materials in Poulson v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
Swain v Poulson Tribal Court Complaint
Reed v Dalton Tribal Court Complaint
An excerpt from the judge’s complaint:
This action arises out of the arrests of and/or criminal charges being brought against members of the Ute Indian Tribe by Duchesne County, Utah. As a result of these arrests and/or charges, members of the Ute Indian Tribe persist in bringing actions in the Ute Tribal Court against Duchesne County Deputy Sheriffs, Judges of the Duchesne County Justice Court and other Duchesne County officials and/or employees. By these actions, members of the Ute IndianTribe seek an award of damages for alleged civil rights violations and to enjoin their prosecutions for violations of State and/or local laws.
Here are the materials in Bonnet v. Harvest (US) Holdings Inc. (D. Utah):
Magistrate Order Denying Motion to Quash
Ute Objections to Magistrate Order
DCT Order Denying Motion to Quash
Here is San Juan County’s answer and opposition to the motion for PI:
The complaint and motion for PI is here.
Here are the materials in Rose v. Utah State Bar (D. Utah):
Here are the opinions in Reber v. Payne and Atkins v. Payne (D. Utah):
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
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.