Here:
The petition is here.
Eastern District of Washington
Yakama Settles Federal Suit with Counties and Out-of-State Jurisdictions over Unauthorized Raid on Tribal Lands
Here is the press release:
YAKAMA-COUNTIES SETTLEMENT PRESS RELEASE
News coverage, where county attorney says “we’re sorry.”
Text from the Yakama press release:
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have reached out-of-court settlements with Yakima County, Benton County, and local governments from Virginia and Mississippi, to resolve the Nation’s lawsuit against those governments for a February 16, 2011, dawn raid of Yakama Reservation trust lands. Upon the first of two joint dismissal requests filed with the U.S. District Court, Judge Rosanna Peterson has already dismissed most of the claims between the parties.
“We are pleased and proud that governments from here in the Yakima Valley and Columbia River Basin, to as far away as the east coast, have all agreed to honor the Yakama Treaty of 1855,” said Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin. “Each of them will seek our blessing before every again returning to Yakama lands. They will also cooperate with our Tribal Police, Tribal Jail and Tribal Court to improve public safety on our reservation.”
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. The federal Treaty negotiators explained to the Yakama that Article II meant that no one would be permitted to step onto Yakama Reservation lands without the Yakamas’ consent.
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 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.
In March 2011, the Yakama Nation sued federal law enforcement agencies and several local governments for violating these federal Treaty provisions when raiding a Yakama member-owned business on Yakama trust lands without providing any advance notice to Yakama authorities, and in turn barring Yakama Nation cops who arrived at the scene of the raid to help keep the peace.
Since the spring of 2012, all of the parties to the litigation have engaged in a multi-track mediation process. The Yakama Nation and Department of Justice defendants remain in settlement negotiations.
Suit materials are here, here, here, and here.
Update Federal District Court Materials in Yakama/Washington Tax Dispute
Here are updated materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service
DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration
Yakama Motion to Compel Arbitration
Yakama Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service
State Opposition to Yakama Motions
Yakama Reply on Ineffective Service Motion
Prior posts are here and here. The case is pending in the CA9 — materials here.
Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Petition — Challenge to Colville Tax Compact
Here:
Tonasket v Sargent Cert Petition
Questions presented:
1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?
2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe that include the tribe’s tobacco tax administrator, acting in violation of federal law, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?
Lower court materials here.
Opening Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama-State of Washington Tax Dispute
Materials in Federal DV Prosecution under Major Crimes Act (Colville)
Here are the materials so far in United States v. Flett (E.D. Wash.):
An excerpt:
On June 5, 2012, Tommie Joe Flett allegedly assaulted his estranged girlfriend at a residence that is located within the boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation. The Colville Confederated Tribes charged Mr. Flett in tribal court with violations of tribal law. On August 24, 2012, Mr. Flett pleaded guilty in tribal court to the crime of “Battery (Domestic Violence).” During the process, he allegedly admitted assaulting his estranged girlfriend on June 5, 2012. The tribal judge sentenced Mr. Flett to a term of 360 days incarceration with credit for time served. The matter did not end there. The United States sought, and obtained, an indictment charging Mr. Flett with violations [2] of federal law. The federal indictment is based upon the same conduct that the 2012 tribal conviction is based upon. Counts one, two, and three allege Mr. Flett committed the crime of assault in Indian Country.18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a)and113(a). Count four alleges he is subject to enhanced punishment based upon prior domestic violence convictions.18 U.S.C. § 117(a). The parties have filed a number of pretrial motions.
Federal Court Rules Against King Mountain Tobacco in Dispute with Washington State
Here are the materials in King Mt. Tobacco Co. v. McKenna (E.D. Wash.):
Washington AG Motion for Summary J
King Mountain Tobacco Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Based on the finding above that the finished cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco [24] are not directly derived from trust land, King Mountain can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that Washington’s escrow statutes are in conflict with the Treaty or federal law which would entitle Plaintiffs to relief. Escrow is required for all non-exempt sales subject to the State’s cigarette taxes, regardless whether those sales occur on or off the reservation. Escrow isnotrequired for tax exempt King Mountain sales of cigarettes purchased directly by enrolled members of federally recognized Indian tribes from an Indian tribal jurisdiction of the member’s tribe for the member’s own use. If there were any past sales that were exempt from state excise tax, but for which King Mountain has deposited money into escrow anyway, King Mountain has failed to offer evidence in support of a refund claim and the court expresses no opinion concerning the same. Accordingly, King Mountain, a NPM, is required to comply with the escrow statute for all past and future sales deemed “units sold.”
Materials in Denial of Yakama Motion to Dismiss Washington v. Yakama Tribal Court
Spokane Tribal Member Trust Breach Complaint re: Mining on Indian Allotment Dismissed without Prejudice; Amended Complaint Filed
Here are the materials in Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice
Federal Agencies Motion to Dismiss
Previous materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.