Eastern District of Wisconsin – Page 4

AUSA Vacancy for Eastern District of Wisconsin

October 5, 2015Sarah M Donnelly

USAO Eastern District of Wisconsin
Attorney
205 Doty Street Suite 301
Green Bay, WI 54301
United States
16-EDWI-1496516-AUSA

About the Office: The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin is currently seeking qualified applicants for a position as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Criminal Division for our Green Bay, WI location. The AUSA will serve as a Community Prosecutor and primarily handle matters arising on the Menominee Indian Reservation.

Job Description: The Community Prosecutor will interact with the Menominee Indian Tribe, as well as other federally-recognized tribes, on a variety of public and community safety matters. The Community Prosecutor also will be responsible for the federal prosecution of felony offenses, such as violent crimes, sexual assaults, sexual exploitation of children, and drug-trafficking offense

Qualifications:

Required qualifications: Applicants must possess a J.D. degree, be an active member of the bar (any U.S. jurisdiction), and have at least one year post-J.D. legal experience.

United States citizenship is required.

Preferred qualifications: Applicants must demonstrate analytical ability, good judgment, and excellent communication and courtroom skills. Applicants must demonstrate superior oral and writing skills as well as strong research and interpersonal skills. Applicants should be proficient in the use of a computer. Applicants must exhibit the ability to work in a supportive and highly professional manner with other attorneys, professional support staff, client agency representatives, law enforcement officers / investigators, opposing counsel, and court staff. Experience working in Indian Country or experience prosecuting violent crimes or sexual assault offenses preferred.

Salary: AD -21 – AD 29: $45,477 to $120,365.00 plus locality.

Travel: Occasional Travel from the Green Bay Branch Office to the Main Office in Milwaukee; and to the Menominee Indian Reservation.

Application Process: Please be sure to follow all instructions in the announcement. Incomplete or late applications will not be accepted and will not receive consideration.

Applications submitted to directly to the District will not be accepted and will be returned. Interested applicants must apply online at: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/414648700

Additional vacancies may be filled under this announcement as needed.

Application Deadline: Monday, October 26, 2015

Relocation Expenses: None

Number of Positions: 1

Pro Se Claim to Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Assets Dismissed

August 25, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Bruette v. Jewell (E.D. Wis.):

10 US Motion to Dismiss + Exhibits

12 Response

15 Reply

27 DCT Order

Federal Court Interprets New Western Sky/CashCall Arbitration Language to Allow for Outside Arbitrator

March 18, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Williams v. CashCall (E.D. Wis.):

4 CashCall Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration

16 Opposition

20 Reply

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

So why didn’t the court appoint an arbitrator in Jackson? The court there held that the arbitration provision (like the one signed by Ms. Walker) was void “because it provides that a decision is to be made under a process that is a sham from stem to stern.” 764 F.3d at 779. Not only was there no authorized representative of the Tribe to preside over the proceeding, “the Tribe has no rules for the conduct of the procedure.” Id. (emphasis in original). By providing the option of using the consumer dispute rules of the AAA or JAMS, Mr. Williams’s contract solves that problem. And by allowing the parties to use an arbitrator from either the AAA or JAMS systems, the bias concerns that the Jackson court had about using a Tribal member as the arbitrator, id. at 779-80, are eliminated.

Mr. Williams’s only argument as to why the arbitration provision is unenforceable is that it calls for the arbitrator to apply Tribal law, which he contends is law that does not exist. (ECF No. 16 at 9.) But that is not true, as evidenced by substantive Tribal law on contract disputes, including contract cases in the Tribe’s courts, and the Tribe’s Commercial Code, Rules of Civil Procedure, Constitution and By-Laws, and Law & Code. (ECF Nos. 12-4, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 21.) Mr. Williams does not raise any of the procedural or substantive unconscionability concerns expressed by the court in Jackson.

The most reasonable reading of Mr. Williams’s loan agreement is that he has the option of choosing to arbitrate any claims that he has relating to his agreement before the AAA, JAMS, or another mutually acceptable organization, applying the consumer dispute rules of the selected administering organization and conducted by an arbitrator from the selected organization’s system. Therefore, unlike Ms. Walker, Mr. Williams is required to pursue his claims against CashCall in arbitration. His complaint shall be dismissed.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Bribery Conviction of Former Ho-Chunk Official

July 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Whiteagle:

CA7 Opinion

And the briefs:

Appellant Opening Brief

Government Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses FLSA Complaint against Potawatomi Bingo Casino (Forest County)

August 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are materials from Smith v. Potawatomi Bingo Casino (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

FCPC Motion to Dismiss

Ho-Chunk Tribal Member Sentenced to Three Years for Bribery

October 25, 2012October 25, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the Pechanga report. And court docs:

DCT Denying Motion for Acquittal

DCT Minute Order on Sentence

Whiteagle & Pettibone Indictment

Pettibone Plea Agreement

USA Sentencing Memorandum re Pettibone

Federal Court Denies DOJ Effort to Withhold Docs from FOIA Request under Jicarilla

February 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting case, in which the court rejected DOJ’s argument that it didn’t have to disclose inter-agency memos (here, between two departments in ENRD) because the agencies were in conflict. It may have ramifications, if it holds up, for post-Jicarilla trust cases if, for example, Justice and Interior (or Interior and NLRB) have opposing interests.

Here are the materials in Menasha Corp. v. DOJ (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Order Denying DOJ Motion

DOJ Motion for Summary J

Menasha Opposition

DOJ Reply

An excerpt from the opinion:

This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U . S.C. § 522. Plaintiffs Menasha Corporation (Menasha) and Neenah–Menasha Sewerage Commission (NMSC) allege that the Defendant, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), refused to provide records responsive to an administrative FOIA request (submitted to the DOJ on December 17, 2010). Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment which raises the question of whether lawyers at the DOJ who represent separate client agencies with adverse interests in the same litigation can share confidential information with each other without waiving attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. The Court concludes that the answer is no, and therefore denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and orders the requested information produced.