Galanda Broadman – Page 2

Galanda Broadman Paralegal Position Announcement

June 7, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Galanda Broadman, PLLC, seeks to add a paralegal to its dynamic tribal practice.

With offices in Seattle and Yakima, Washington, and Bend, Oregon, Galanda Broadman
is dedicated to advancing tribal legal rights and Indian business interests. The firm
represents tribal governments, businesses and members in critical litigation, business and
regulatory matters, especially in the areas of Indian Treaty rights, tribal sovereignty,
taxation, commerce, personal injury, and human/civil rights.

The firm seeks a paralegal with solid litigation and case management experience for its
Seattle office

The following criteria are strongly preferred: demonstrated paralegal experience; proven
abilities under pressure; attention to detail; solid writing and organization; tech savvy;
critical, proactive and creative thinking; strong work ethic; and sound ethics and morals.

Position will also involve office managerial and administrative efforts.

Salary DOE.

Qualified applicants should submit a cover letter tailored to this announcement, as well as
a resume, and list of at least three educational and professional references, to Alice Hall,
the firm’s Office Manager, at alice@galandabroadman.com, as soon as possible and by
no later than Friday, June 30, 2016.

For more information about Galanda Broadman, visit http://www.galandabroadman.com.

Galanda Response to Nooksack Notice of Banishment

June 6, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Written Statement in Response to Notice of Hearing Re- Banishment of Gabriel S. Galanda Pursuant to Resolution No. 16-28

Nooksack Appellate Court Orders Nooksack Tribal Court to Comply with Order to Accept Galanda Filings

May 25, 2016May 26, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

I should be specific — here is what the order says:

We decline to rule on the show cause motion at this time. However, we cannot ignore the allegation there has been noncompliance with our April 25th Order. Therefore, we hereby order the Petitioners and the Court Clerk to each respond in writing on or before June 3, 2016, on whether Petitioners complaints and related motions have been accepted for filing. The parties shall submit their written responses by mail to the Northwest Indian Court System ….

Here is the order:

In re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court Order Re Written Responses to April 25 2016 Order on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Briefs in that petition are here.

The April 25 order is here.

The lower court returned a Galanda filing on May 23 (note “rejected” stamp in upper court):

Galanda v Bernard Rejected Motion for Injunction

And again on May 25:

Galanda v. Bernard Rejected First Amended Complaint

Nooksack Tribe Denies Business Licenses to Two Law Firms

May 23, 2016May 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Katherine Canete Letter Denying Corr Downs Business License

Katherine Canete Letter Denying Galanda Broadman Business License

Nooksack Disenrollment/Disbarment Update

May 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are new pleadings filed in Galanda v. Bernard (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Galanda v. Bernard Pro Se Petitioners’ Appellate Motion for Show Cause Re Contempt

Galanda v. Bernard Declaration of Ryan Dreveskracht In Support of Pro Se Petitioners’ Appellate Motion for Show Cause Re Contempt

Nooksack Tribal Court Letter to Galanda Broadman Lawyers Refusing Pro Se Appearance

Here is a new filing in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Belmont (Roberts) v. Kelly Second Declaration of Michelle Roberts In Support of Appellate Writ of Mandamus

Judge Orders Judicial Notice in Nooksack Disbarrment

March 22, 2016March 23, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Belmont v. Kelly Order Re Resolution 16-28 and Due Process; Granting Motion for Judicial Notice

Excerpt:

Repeatedly, the Court has observed such tactics by Defendants: They rely upon case law where Defendants and their counsel have access to the full record of the case, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without approval by Tribal Council, a majority of whom are Defendants in this lawsuit. They rely upon statutes where Defendants and their counsel have full access to the statutes, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without Tribal Council approval. E.g., after Defendants claimed that the recall option is open to Plaintiffs, the Council declined to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of amended Title 60, setting forth recall procedures. And most recently, Defendants delegated to themselves authority for disciplining advocates in the Tribal Court and then, without providing notice and opportunity to be heard, they disbarred attorneys representing their adversaries in litigation.

Update: News coverage here — “Judge rules ‘biased’ tribal council denied disbarred lawyer due process“