Navajo Nation Supreme Court – Page 7

Navajo Nation Supreme Court Reinstates Disbarment of Navajo Chief Legislative Counsel

January 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is that opinion.

Navajo Nation Supreme Court Rejects Application for Attorney Fees for Party Challenging Election Reducing Size of Navajo Council

January 6, 2011January 5, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Very interesting opinion (available here).

The court’s syllabus:

In the attorney fee phase of this appeal of the Office of Hearing and Appeals’ dismissal, the Supreme Court invalidates the appropriation of public funds to pay attorney fees in this case and the use of a “grant agreement” for attorney payment; and places a moratorium on Navajo Nation discretionary spending through direct disbursement “financial assistance” programs until a statutory and regulatory basis is in place in compliance with Navajo Nation fiduciary laws.

Materials on Navajo SCT Disbarment of Navajo Legislative Legal Counsel

October 24, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

In re Seanez Writ

In re Seanez, No. SC-CV-58-10,opinion

Navajo Supreme Court Disbars Navajo Legislative Counsel

October 22, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the news article.

Navajo SCT Issues In re Saenez Writ of Prohibition — UPDATED

October 20, 2010October 21, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re Saenez: InreSeanezWrit.

An excerpt:

On August 4, 2010, you issued a legal memorandum advising the Speaker of the Navajo Nation Council that the Court in its July 16, 2010 Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Shirley v. Morgan, No. SC-CV-02-10, exceeded its jurisdiction in a number of holdings, even though the holdings are now settled law, with the time period for reconsideration having passed and no motion for reconsideration having been filed or raised by the party Council. You advised the Navajo Nation Council that it is legal to defy our holdings, and the result was in fact defiance by the Office of the Speaker in its August 4, 2010 memorandum to Office of Navajo Government Development staff. Your legal advice runs counter to Navajo Nation law and is in violation of 7 N.N.C. §206 which imposes upon you, as a government lawyer, a duty not to obstruct interfere or otherwise influence the functions of the Navajo Nation Courts.

The court ordered Mr. Saenez to appear Friday to show cause why he should not be barred from practice in the Navajo courts.

And here is the Chief Legislative Counsel opinion at issue: Opinion_No._CLC-04-10[1]

Navajo Times: Navajo SCT in Navajo Council’s “Crosshairs”

October 14, 2010October 14, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Additional documents:

NN Pres Press Release onElection of NN Judges

Justice Grant denied appt

Justice Shirley denied appt

From the Navajo Times:

The Navajo Nation Supreme Court is under attack.

Legislation to amend the rules for the Council’s Judiciary Committee governing removal of Supreme Court justices and district court judges is targeting Chief Justice Herb Yazzie, according to a “confidential” memo on the bill.

On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee voted against the permanent appointment of Associate Justice Louise Grant, although she had resigned Oct. 8 and did not attend the hearing.

A day earlier, the committee voted against permanent appointment of Associate Justice Eleanor Shirley, despite a hearing in which no negative comments or information about her were presented.

According to Navajo law, the president cannot reappoint people to the bench once the Judiciary Committee has voted not to confirm them in a permanent appointment.

Leonard Tsosie (Pueblo Pintado/Torreon/Whitehorse Lake), the only lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that the committee’s 4-3 vote against Justice Shirley was “revenge” for the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of President Joe Shirley Jr. (no relation) and against the Council’s position in recent cases.

“The evidence before us didn’t support voting against Justice Shirley,” said Tsosie, one of three committee members who voted to confirm her. “In fact, it was unanimously satisfactory.”

On Wednesday, committee Chairman Kee Allen Begay (May Farms/Round Rock) denied Tsosie’s claim.

“The actions of the committee are not to retaliate against the Supreme Court like honorable Leonard Tsosie claims. The committee acted in the best interest of the Navajo people by upholding trust and being an accountable government,” Begay said. “Honorable Tsosie has a history of instigating arguments if a decision does not benefit his values, belief systems or himself.”

In May, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of voter Tim Nelson’s complaint seeking to overturn a Dec. 15 election that reduced the 88-member Council to 24.

The high court also ordered the Navajo Election Administration to immediately conduct an election for 24 delegates and not 88, derailing efforts by current Council leaders to postpone the downsizing for four years.

The justices also upheld the lower court decision that the Council illegally placed President Joe Shirley Jr. on leave pending a special prosecutor’s investigation of two business deals that cost the tribe millions.

The high court’s ruling is now being recognized as a landmark decision that addresses the role of Diné Fundamental Law, the encroachment of the Council into the judicial branch, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and the primary role of the Navajo people in shaping their government.

According to Sept. 13, 2010, memo labeled “confidential” and addressed to Chief Legislative Counsel Frank Seanez from Delegate Lorenzo Curley (Houck/Lupton/Nahata Dziil), proposed legislation to amend the Judiciary Committee’s hearing rules is intended “to remove the Navajo Nation Chief Justice.”

Continue reading →

Navajo S.Ct. Asserts Jurisdiction over Nonmember Tortfeasor; Rejects Montana Analysis

September 24, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Very interesting case, and since a prominent anti-tribal jurisdiction legal foundation filed an amicus brief in the matter, one suspects it will go to federal court. In EXC, Inc. v. Keyenta District Court (opinion here), the Navajo Supreme Court held that it would allow the Navajo trial court to hear a wrongful death action against a non-Indian owned tour bus that allegedly killed a Navajo man and an unborn Navajo fetus.

An excerpt:

We find that under the proposition in Strate, U.S. Highway 160 is not “equivalent to non-Indian alienated land for non-member governance purposes.” U.S. Highway 160 is part of the territory of the Navajo Nation for governance purposes over reservation matters as defined by 7 N.N.C. § 254(A) and 18 U.C.S. § 1151 and Montana-Strate is inapplicable.

here is no question that the events giving rise to this claim affected the health, safety and welfare of the Navajo Nation as well as members of the Navajo Nation, satisfying the Long-Arm Statute. The fatalities in this case were a Navajo father and fetus. We take judicial notice that the child, even the unborn child, occupies a space in Navajo culture that can best be described as holy or sacred, although neither of these words convey the child’s status accurately. The child is awę́ę́ t’áá’íídą́ą́’hiną́, alive at conception, and develops perfectly in the care of the mother. The umbilical cord, ííná bita’ nanít’í’, is the life line between the mother and unborn child. The mother, and now the surviving grandmother and aunts (RPIs) have the maternal role of Iíná Yę́sdá hi, which encompasses bearing, raising and teaching a child, as established by White Shell Woman in our journey narratives. See Riggs v. Estate of Tom Attakai, No. SC-CV-39-04, slip op. at 3 (Nav. Sup.Ct. June 13, 2007). It is in the interest of the Navajo Nation government that family members may bring action concerning their children in a Navajo Nation court that fully comprehends how such concerns should be treated on the basis of k’é.