Nooksack Tribal Court

Nooksack Appellate Court Orders Tribal Court Clerk to Accept Galanda Pro Se Complaint

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in Galanda v. Bernard:

Galanda v. Bernard Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus

An excerpt:

Thus, we hereby order (1) that the Court Clerk of the Nooksack Tribal Court shall either accept and file Petitioners complaints and related motions or file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this Court on or before May 16th, 2016, and (2) that the NICS administrator serve a copy of the petition together with this order by mail on the Court Clerk. 

The motion for the writ of mandamus is here.

The court clerk’s refusal to accept the complaint is here.

The complaint is here.

News Coverage of Nooksack Tribal Judge Removal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is “Nooksack Tribe fires judge handling disenrollment case.”

New Filings at Nooksack

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contemp

Galanda v. Bernard Appellate Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Nooksack Tribal Court Clerk Rejects Galanda Pro Se Filing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Galanda v. Bernard:

Nooksack Court Clerk Correspondence Rejecting Pro Se Complaint

Galanda Broadman Dreveskracht Pro Se Email Inquiry to Nooksack Judge Re Status of Complaint, State of Tribal Court

Galanda Broadman Lawyers Sue to Challenge Disbarment in Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Galanda v. Bernard (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Galanda v. Bernard Complaint

Galanda v. Bernard Motion for Injunction and Declaratory Relief

Judge Orders Judicial Notice in Nooksack Disbarrment

Sarah M Donnelly

Belmont v. Kelly Order Re Resolution 16-28 and Due Process; Granting Motion for Judicial Notice

Excerpt:

Repeatedly, the Court has observed such tactics by Defendants: They rely upon case law where Defendants and their counsel have access to the full record of the case, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without approval by Tribal Council, a majority of whom are Defendants in this lawsuit.  They rely upon statutes where Defendants and their counsel have full access to the statutes, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without Tribal Council approval.  E.g., after Defendants claimed that the recall option is open to Plaintiffs, the Council declined to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of amended Title 60, setting forth recall procedures.  And most recently, Defendants delegated to themselves authority for disciplining advocates in the Tribal Court and then, without providing notice and opportunity to be heard, they disbarred attorneys representing their adversaries in litigation.

Update: News coverage here — “Judge rules ‘biased’ tribal council denied disbarred lawyer due process“

News Profile of Nooksack Disbarment Issue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Nooksack leaders disbar lawyer fighting tribal disenrollments” from the Seattle Times.

And another pleading in Belmont v. Kelly:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Notice for Permission to FIle an Interlocutory Appeal

Update in Nooksack Disbarment Drama

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Fifth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Reply to Response to Motion for Judicial Notice by Pro Se Plaintiff

Nooksack Tribe Response to Tribal Court on Disbarment of Galanda Firm

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Response to Motion for Judicial Notice

Update (3/18/16) — the tribe sent the attachments to this filing:

Decl of CB

Decl of RD

Decl of SG (1 of 3)

Decl of SG (2 of 3)

Decl of SG (3 of 3)

Decl of TS

 

Additional Update on Nooksack Disenrollments; Did Tribe Bar Plaintiff’s Counsel from Proceeding with Disenrollment Defense?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Belmont v. Kelly Case Management Order Re Motion for Judicial Notice

 

Belmont v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S Galanda

Belmont v. Kelly Fourth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Motion for Judicial Notice

The first document above references Nooksack council resolutions 16-27 and 16-28. 16-27, enacted on February 24, provides:

Whenever the Tribal Council becomes aware that any advocate’s behavior and/or practices reflect so poorly upon the proper administration of justice before the Nooksack Tribal Court of the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Tribal Council may revoke any privileges provided to such person(s) and bar them from further practice in any administrative tribunal before the Nooksack Indian Tribe or proceeding before the Nooksack Tribal Court. Tribal Council may hold such hearings as necessary to ensure that such behavior and/or practices are proven; or, as may be necessary to correct such past behavior and/or practices.

In the judicial order above, the court described 16-28:

On the same date, February 24, 2016, the Nooksack Tribal Council enacted Resolution #16-28, barring Gabriel Galanda and other attorneys in the Galanda Broadman law firm from practicing in the Nooksack Tribal Court and from engaging in business on Nooksack Tribal lands.

The court ordered the tribal defendants to produce an affidavit describing the process offered the Galanda firm before issuing 16-28, on the theory that the Indian Civil Rights Act requires at least some process.

We will continue to observe the troubling doings at Nooksack.