Here are the materials in Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
275 Colville Motion to Dismiss
279 DCT Order re Supplemental Memorandums
308 DCT Order re Additional Supplemental Briefing
312 Plaintiffs Supplemental Briefing
315 Wapato Heritage Supplemental Briefing
316 Colville Supplemental Briefing
Here is the opening brief in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
Lower court materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.) are here.
Here is the complaint in Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation v. USFWS (E.D. Wash.):
Yakama v USFWS – wildflower tours
An excerpt:
This action relates to agency decisions and actions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and named officials thereof to conduct guided bus tours for members of the general public on Rattlesnake Mountain within the Hanford Reach National Monument (HRNM). The mountain is considered by the plaintiff to be of great religious and cultural importance, and for that reason the site has been federally designated as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) under the NHPA. The defendants concluded in April 2012 that the guided wildflower tours will have no adverse effect on the TCP, and plaintiff seeks judicial review of this finding. In addition, the defendants are seeking judicial review of a final agency action proceeding with scheduled public wildflower tours in 2014 despite a lack of concurrence by both the plaintiff and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and subsequent violations of consultation procedures required by the NHPA.
Here are the materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.):
149 DCT Order Granting US Motion
An excerpt:
The Court finds no exemption from federal excise taxes on manufactured tobacco products under the General Allotment Act because the finished tobacco products are not derived directly from the land. The Court finds no exemption under either Article II or III of the Yakama Treaty of 1855 because neither Article contains express exemptive language applicable to the manufacture of tobacco products. Finally, the Court finds no exemption under Section 4225 of the Internal Revenue Code because the exemption for Indian handicrafts on its face does not apply to excise taxes for the manufacture of tobacco products. Therefore, the United States is entitled to summary judgment on all claims.
Here are the materials in George v. Superior Court (E.D. Wash.):
39 DCt Order Dismissing Claims
An excerpt:
Here, the three elements for abstention are met. The underlying Superior Court proceedings are ongoing and it is generally recognized that family relations are a traditional area of state concern. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979); H.C. ex rel. Gordon, 203 F.3d at 613. The Superior Court had apparent concurrent personal jurisdiction over the parties with the Tribal Court and has jurisdiction to determine the legal affect of the Tribal Court proceedings, its own jurisdiction, and to consider deferring to the Tribal Court if it finds it appropriate. See Wash. Rev.Code 37.12.010; Maxa v. Yakima Petroleum, Inc., 83 Wash.App. 763, 767, 924 P.2d 372 (1996); Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. Superior Court of Okanogan County, 945 F.2d 1138, 1140, n. 4 (9th Cir.1991) (noting that Pub.L. 280 did not divest Tribal Courts of concurrent jurisdiction over child custody matters). The children were residing off-reservation in Spokane County for at least six months consecutive prior to when the custody petitions were filed, and it appears the children may have been domiciled on Yakama Nation land for at least a day when Plaintiff’s custody petition was filed in Tribal Court. Finally, both parties availed themselves of the child custody proceedings held in the respective courts. Defendant participated in the Tribal Court proceedings, and Plaintiff participated in the Superior Court proceedings. Thus, Plaintiff has an adequate forum in which to assert her federal claims. At this point, extraordinary circumstances do not exist that would require the Court to refrain from abstaining in this matter.
Here are the materials:
The attorney fees award, I believe, is discussed here.
Here.
YAKAMA NATION STRIKES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH DOJ, FBI TO SETTLE LITIGATION OVER 2011 RESERVATION RAID (FBI RECITALS AGREEMENT PRESS RELEASE PDF)
FBI AGREES TO COMMUNICATE WITH YAKAMA POLICE BEFORE ENTERING YAKAMA INDIAN COUNTRY
Toppenish, WA– The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have reached an unprecedented, out-of-court settlement with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), principally the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The settlement fully and finally resolves Yakama’s lawsuit against the FBI and several of its sister law enforcement agencies, as well as various county and municipal police agencies from Washington State, Mississippi and Virginia. That suit arose from a federal task force raid of Yakama Reservation trust lands that commenced at dawn on February 16, 2011. Upon reported word of the settlement on August 15, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Rosanna Peterson closed the case.
“Today is historic. The United States has agreed to honor the law enforcement protocols set forth in the Yakama Treaty of 1855. That is unprecedented.” said Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman and former police chief Harry Smiskin. “From today forward the FBI will communicate with Tribal Police before they enter Yakama Indian Country. I am confident that the resulting cooperation between federal and tribal cops will greatly improve public safety throughout our territories.”
Through Article II of the Yakama Treaty of 1855, the Yakama Reservation was set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the Yakama Nation. To that end, the Yakama Treaty makes clear that no “white man” shall be permitted to reside upon Yakama Indian Country without permission from the Yakama Nation. Federal Treaty negotiators explained to the Yakama that Article II meant that no one – not even United States agents, with the lone exception of today’s Bureau of Indian Affairs agents – would be permitted to step onto Yakama Reservation lands without the Yakamas’ consent.
Also, in Article VIII of the Yakama Treaty, the United States and Yakama Nation set forth a process for delivering Yakama criminals or suspects who are in Yakama Indian Country to federal authorities. Federal Treaty negotiators also explained to the Yakama that Article VIII meant there would be a consultation process between the Head Chief or all of the Yakama Chiefs, and the United States, relative to any Yakama alleged to have committed a wrong, before they might be delivered up to federal authorities.
The settlement agreement between Yakama and DOJ is called, “Recitals of Joint Law Enforcement Goals.” It recites that:
Here are the updated materials in Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.