And a pleading from one of the defendants, Johnny Naize:
Navajo Nation
Navajo Nation Seeks Proposals to Assist with Claims for Unpaid Contract Support Costs
Here:
The Navajo Nation Department of Justice seeks outside counsel assistance in pursuing the Navajo Nation’s claims for unpaid contract support costs from P.L. 93-638 contracts entered into with the Indian Health Service (IHS). This would include developing claims for unpaid contract support costs, entering into settlement negotiations with IHS and, if necessary, making recommendations to the Attorney General for litigation of those claims if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached. Qualifications include experience in and knowledge of Federal Indian law, especially the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), P.L. 93-638, as amended, and experience filing claims for payment of contract support costs pursuant to the ISDEAA.
Proposals must be received by email by the Navajo Nation Department of Justice by no later than 5:00 PM MT on September 16, 2016. NO LATE PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Navajo Nation DOJ Seeks Proposals to Assist with Passage of Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement
Here:
Legislative and Lobbying Legal Services to assist with the introduction and passage of legislation to implement the Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement (NUWRSA) approved by the Navajo Nation Council in January 2016. The NUWRSA provides for the quantification of the water rights of the Navajo Nation in the Upper Colorado River Basin in Utah in the amount of 81,500 acre-feet of depletion per year. The effectiveness of the settlement is contingent on securing U.S. Congressional approval of the settlement and the authorization of approximately $210 million for future water development in the State of Utah. Selected Respondent will provide services to secure favorable approval of the NUWRSA by Congress and by the Utah Legislature. Selected Respondent will report directly to the Attorney General or her designee and will also be expected to work with the elected officials of the Navajo Nation and their offices.
The Navajo Nation Department of Justice will be accepting proposals for this service postmarked by 5:00 PM MT on Monday, September 5, 2016. NO LATE PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Harvard Researchers to Lead New Council of Economic Advisors for the Navajo Nation
Link to press release from Office of President and Vice President here.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jensen v. EXC Inc.
Ninth Circuit Rules against Testimony Submitted on Historical Trauma to Show Navajo Defendant was Coerced into Confessing
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Woody.
An excerpt:
The district court’s factual findings regarding “historical trauma” and the impact of Native American culture on the voluntariness of Woody’s statements were clearly erroneous. A “‘finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Here, the district court relied on expert testimony from Dr. David McIntyre, who opined that Native Americans are susceptible to coercion during questioning because of cultural differences and “historical trauma.” Yet during crossexamination, Dr. McIntyre acknowledged that his “very broad generalizations about Native Americans” could not be attributed to Woody specifically and conceded that Woody had not been diagnosed with historical trauma because “[t]here is no such diagnosis.” Because these characteristics could not be attributed to Woody individually, the district court erred in relying on them to support its finding that Woody’s will had been overborne.
Briefs:
Navajo Nation Office of Legal Counsel Seeking Interns
Details are available here: Legal Internship opening
If interested, contact Karis Begay: knbegaye@navajo-nsn.gov
Article Published by ABA, Enforcing Tribal Environmental Laws without “Treatment as a State”
Jill Grant has published an article on the Navajo Nation’s innovative petroleum storage tank inspection and enforcement program. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act lacks a “treatment as a state” provision for Tribes, but the Navajo Nation has found other ways to develop a noteworthy program that enhances environmental protection, Tribal sovereignty, and self-determination.
Link to article here.
Lezmond Mitchell v. U.S. Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
Petitioner, a Navajo, is a federal prisoner sentenced to death under the
Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591-3599. Petitioner’s statements to the
FBI constituted the primary evidence at his capital trial. The FBI took these
statements while petitioner spent twenty-five days in tribal custody, with no right
to the assistance of counsel. In a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, petitioner presented evidence that a working arrangement between federal
and tribal authorities resulted in his arrest on a minor tribal charge, and kept him
in prolonged custody not authorized under Navajo Nation law, to deprive him of his
federal procedural rights. Petitioner also alleged ineffective assistance at the guilt
and penalty phases of his trial, and the depositions of his three trial attorneys
revealed serious contradictions regarding the investigations undertaken and
defenses pursued.
An evidentiary hearing is required in a Section 2255 case “[u]nless the
motion and the files and records of the cases conclusively show that the prisoner is
entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). In this case, the district court denied the
Section 2255 motion without a hearing, and a divided court of appeals affirmed.
The questions presented are:1. Whether the court of appeals, in conflict with the Eighth and Tenth Circuits’
grants of a hearing on similar records, erroneously concluded that petitioner
could not establish, under any circumstances, that his attorneys had
performed deficiently at the penalty phase of his trial.2. Whether the court of appeals clearly misapprehended Section 2255(b)’s
standards by viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government,
weighing the evidence, and silently resolving factual disputes to conclude
that no evidentiary hearing was required.3. Whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded that reasonable jurists
could not debate whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted on
petitioner’s claim of federal-tribal collusion to deprive him of his rights to
prompt presentment and assistance of counsel.
Lower court decision.
Update on Ongoing San Francisco Peaks and Arizona Snowbowl Litigation
Here are several documents recently released:
Hopi Settlement Agreement and Release
2016 03 11 -Press Release re Settlement with Flagstaff FINAL COPY
News coverage: SETTLEMENT TABLED — Flagstaff Council tables Hopi snowmaking settlement
We posted materials on the underlying case here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.