This is a wonderful experience for new law grads. Highly recommended.
Here.
Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal Court
Wisconsin Judicare Indian Law Office Job Posting
INDIAN LAW STAFF ATTORNEY
DESCRIPTION — Wisconsin Judicare’s Indian Law Office is hiring an additional attorney to represent Native American individuals on a variety of issues including civil and criminal defense representation in the Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal Court. Wisconsin Judicare is a non-profit legal services law firm serving northern Wisconsin where there are 11 Indian reservations. This attorney will be responsible for representing members of the Ho-Chunk in both tribal and state court. The Judicare office is in Wausau, however this position could be based in another location depending on the candidate. Position start date is early June.
DUTIES — (1) Represent individual tribal members charged with crimes in the Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal Court; (2) Represent individuals in civil cases (family law, elder law, and estate planning) in tribal and state court. (3) Conduct community education and outreach.
QUALIFICATIONS — (1) Must be admitted to practice law in Wisconsin; (2) admitted, or the ability to gain admission within 60 days of hire to the Ho-Chunk Nation Bar. (3) Good communications and advocacy skills; and (4) Knowledge of Native American issues, and familiarity with the Ho-Chunk Nation preferred.
SALARY — DOE. There are excellent fringe benefits.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE — Please submit resume, writing sample and 3 references to David Armstrong, Director, Indian Law Office, Wisconsin Judicare, P.O. Box 6100, Wausau, WI 54402 or at darmstrong@judicare.org. For inquiries call David at 1-800-472-1638 ext. 309.
NATIVE AMERICANS, MINORITIES, WOMEN, OLDER PERSONS AND
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY.
Ho-Chunk Tribal Court Addresses DNA testing for Tribal Enrollment Purposes
We imagine the DNA issue will arise again and again in Indian nations all over.
Here is the opinion in Powless v. NCN Enrollment Committee (CV 10-15 Decision).
An excerpt:
The DNA test allowed into evidence by the Committee is hearsay as defined by the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (hereinafter FED. R. EVID.) 801(c). It is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Id. A written assertion is considered a “statement.” FED. R. EVID. 801(a). Thus, the DNA test‟s assertion that Mr. Powless is not the petitioner‟s father is a “statement.” A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. FED. R. EVID. 801(b). The “declarant” of the results of the DNA test is the Oklahoma State University Human Identity Laboratory (hereinafter OSU Laboratory). At the hearing, no one from the OSU laboratory testified. The DNA test results were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; specifically that Mr. Powless is not the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the DNA test results meet the definition of hearsay. Such hearsay is inadmissible. FED. R. EVID. 802. The DNA test does not fall under the business records hearsay exception. FED. R. EVID. 803(6) allows business records to be admitted “if witnesses testify that the records are integrated into a company’s records and relied upon in its day to day operations.” Matter of Ollag Constr. Equip. Corp., 665 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 1981). Although OSU laboratory may engage in DNA analyses on a daily basis, those analyses are not akin to the running of the day-to-day operations of the business. The necessary witnesses also
did not testify at the removal hearing.
Turtle Talk 