Here are the materials in Tonasket v. Sargent:
Lower court materials here.
The Ninth Circuit recently decided a related appeal here.
Here are the materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion
Yakama Motion for Partial Summary J
An excerpt:
This Court already has held that King Mountain does not enjoy an exemption from the federal excise tax on tobacco products under Capoeman because the tax is not imposed on products directly derived from the land. Therefore, to the degree that Article II contains express exemptive language, the exemption to taxation created by Article II would not apply to the facts of this case. Id. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish an exemption to the excise tax under the Treaty.
The court also rejected claims that the General Allotment Act forbid the federal taxes as well:
In this case, Mr. Wheeler is the allottee, but King Mountain is the tax payer. The tax lien statute applies to the property of the “person liable to pay” the unpaid tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6321. Although the Court is aware that Mr. Wheeler’s assets could be subject to lien if King Mountain were found to be Mr. Wheeler’s alter ego, see G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 350–51, 97 S.Ct. 619, 50 L.Ed.2d 530 (1977), the record is devoid of any evidence that King Mountain is Mr. Wheeler’s alter ego. Accordingly, any lien would be imposed on King Mountain’s property. As the trust property is held for the benefit of Mr. Wheeler, it is not an asset of King Mountain. Therefore, under the reasoning of Anderson, the Capoeman exception to taxation would not apply to income earned by King Mountain.
Materials in a related case are here.
Here are the updated materials in State of Washington v. Tribal Court for the Yakama Indian Nation (E.D. Wash.):
Washington Opposition to Yakama Motion
DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion for PI
The materials from the tribal court portion of this case are here. And the earlier federal court materials on tribal court jurisdiction are here.
Here is the order:
DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI
Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).
Here:
Yakama v Haight Tribal Court Complaint (USDC)
Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO (USDC)
Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO Motion (USDC)
Related federal court materials are here.
Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):
News coverage here.
Here is the order in Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Judgment Favoring Pakootas — Phase I
Here are materials from Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Order Partially Dismissing Villegas Complaint
Here are the briefs relating to last week’s opinion posted here:
237 FILED – Memorandum in support of motion for TRO and PI
244 FILED – federal opposition to motion for tro
248 FILED – County Opposition to TRO
Here are the materials in this update to Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
An excerpt from the court’s order:
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 21, 2009. Plaintiffs have acquired memberships in and are tenants/occupants of the Mill Bay Resort, a campground located on Lake Chelan in Chelan County, Washington. The Mill Bay Resort exists on real property known as Moses Allotment No.8, also known as Indian Allotment 151-MA-8 (“MA_8”), which consists of approximately 174.26 acres on the shores of Lake Chelan. MA-8 is part of an original allotment authorized under the Moses Agreement of July 7, 1883 as ratified by 23 Stat. 79-80, July 4, 1884 and conveyed to Wapato John through two trust patents. The history of the creation ofMA-8 and other Moses Agreement allotments has been discussed elsewhere, including in this court’s decision on summary judgment (ECF No. 144), in Wapato Heritage, LLC v. U.S., 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011), and in U.S. v. La Chappelle, 81 F. 152 (C.C. 12 Wash. 1897), United States v. Moore, 161 F. 513 (9th Cir. 1908), and Starr v. Long Jim, 227 13 U.S. 613 (1913).
You must be logged in to post a comment.