Here are the materials in Dinger v. Wishenko (N.D. Ill.):
58 Insurance Co. Motion for Summary Judgment
70-2 Order re Partial Settlement of Claim
74 Wishenko Motion for Summary Judgment
91 Wishenko Reply in Support of 74
Materials in the related Federal Tort Claims Act case, Dinger v. United States (D. Kan.):
Here is the order:
Here are the materials in Darnell v. Merchant (D. Kan.):
An excerpt:
Petitioner Bobbie Darnell, a member of the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas (the “Tribe”), filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303 seeking relief from her tribal court convictions and sentence. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding her immediate release from jail in Brown County, Kansas, overturning her convictions in Kickapoo criminal cases numbers CRM016-11 and CRM016-23, and staying all further tribal court action against her (Doc. 1). In addition, Petitioner has filed a motion for release on her own recognizance (Doc. 25). As explained below, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because Petitioner has not exhausted her tribal remedies. The Court further denies Petitioner’s motion for release on her own recognizance as moot.
Here are the materials so far in Darnell v. Merchant (D. Kan.):
12 Motion to Disqualify Counsel
An excerpt:
Darnell was convicted on March 9, 2017 in two cases before the Tribal Court of tampering with records, fraudulent handling of recordable instruments, and misuse of tribal funds. Although initially released on a cash bond pending sentencing, Darnell was subsequently arrested and has been incarcerated in the Brown County, Kansas Jail since March 31, 2017. On April 14, 2017, Darnell filed her petition for a writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”). On April 24, 2017, Darnell was sentenced to 18 months and 22 months incarceration, to run concurrently, on her conviction in the two cases. On May 4, 2017, Darnell filed a supplement to her Petition. In her Petition and supplement, Darnell alleges that the Tribal Court committed a number of errors and improprieties with regard to her trial, sentencing, and incarceration, and that she was deprived of her liberty without due process of law as required under the Indian Civil Rights Act. Lemon served as Special Prosecutor for the Kickapoo Tribe in prosecuting Darnell and tried her jury trial that is the subject of this habeas corpus action.
Download(PDF): Sentencing Order
Download (PDF): Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding
Links:
Kan. Dept. of Agriculture
Kansas Reaches Water Rights Agreement With Kickapoo Tribe (9/9/16)
Kickapoo Indian Reservation Water Right Settlement Agreement (9/14/16)
Here are the materials in Dinger v. United States (D. Kan.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Tammy Dinger brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that her husband’s death was the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a tribal employee who was allegedly working under a grant from the federal government at the time of the accident. Defendant United States of America requests that the Court either dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 8), or in the alternative, grant summary judgment in its favor (Doc. 15).
Here is the news coverage.
An excerpt:
In her decision handed down on March 12, Judge Wahwassuck found:
1. The Plaintiffs (have) failed to carry their burden of establishing that the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas and/or its agents (the Defendants herein) have waived tribal sovereign immunity in this matter.
2. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have a “property” right to their positions on the Gaming Commission, and thus have failed to demonstrate that their due process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act were violated.
With these findings and her conclusion of law that the Defendants action was protected from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Nancy Sue Bear claims the Brown County District Court did not have jurisdiction to dissolve the family partnership and then partition and order the sale of real estate that she and her family, all enrolled members of the Kickapoo Nation Tribe, had farmed on the Kickapoo Reservation. Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories. Because all of the parties to their action are enrolled members of the Kickapoo Nation Tribe and all of the land is located within the Kickapoo Reservation, we hold that the tribal court is the proper forum for resolving this dispute. It is a matter of sovereignty. We reverse the judgments of the district court and remand the matter with directions to dismiss the case.
Turtle Talk 