Here is the petition in Neff v. United States:
1. Does a misrepresentation about the true identity of the owner of a business during settlement negotiations to resolve a civil lawsuit constitute a scheme to defraud the litigant of money or property in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes?
2. Is the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity wholly inapplicable in a circumstance where payday loans are made by a Native American tribe in affiliation with an entity acting as an “arm of the tribe” where such loans are made at interest rates in excess of state regulations, thus rendering the loans ipso facto unlawful debts in violation of the RICO statute?
3. Does the government have to prove willfulness to establish a RICO conspiracy to collect an unlawful debt?
Lower court materials here
We posted all the materials from this case here.
Here are the updated materials in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG (D. Nev.):
444 MJ Report
448 Little Axe Objection
449 AMG et al Objection
451 FTC Response
559 DCT Order Adopting MJ Report
Prior post in this part of the litigation is here. The post related to the partial settlement is here. Other posts are here and here.
The case is Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services (D. Nev.). Here are the most recent materials from the FTC website:
News coverage here.
FTC Motion for Partial Summary J
Tucker Defendants Response
Here are additional pleadings in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. (D. Nev.):
Scott Tucker & AMG Response
Robert Campbell Response
Part 269 Response
Muir Law Firm Response
Little Axe Response
Don Brady Response
Scott Tucker & AMG Motion to Dismiss
Little Axe Motion to Dismiss
Joint Motion to Dismiss
The “responses” are responses to the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. That motion and the complaint are here and here.
News coverage via Pechanga here.
Here, via Indianz.
Two points on payday lenders that should be apparent by now:
1. Read the Nebraska Supreme Court decision in StoreVisions v. Omaha Tribe, where the court held that tribal immunity was waived where the tribal chair and vice chair signed a waiver document (without constitutional authority to waive immunity) in the presence of other council members, and which the court held the presence of the other council members was sufficient to waive tribal immunity. Courts will find a way to find a waiver.
2. Read David Fredericks’ rendition (pp.217-18) of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in C&L Enters. v. Citizen Potawatomi, where the Court directly asked the CPN attorney about the way tribes view immunity, and the deeply off-put reaction from the Court by the answer. In fact, here is that exchange (well worth the read):
Here is the petition in MTE Financial Services v. Alameda County Superior Court:
MTE Financial Services v Superior Court Petition for Review