Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court Seeking Associate Judge

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe requests applications for the position of ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUDGE of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court. (PDF)

 

The Associate Chief Judge shall carry out the duties and obligations of the office in accordance with the provisions of the Tribal Constitution and the Standing Rock Tribal Code of Justice.  Section 1-305 of the Code of Justice, available online at standingrock.org, outlines the duties of the Judges of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court.

 

The terms of employment, as well as the compensation for this position, will be set forth in the negotiated agreement between the Associate Chief Judge and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council.  The Associate Chief Judge will be compensated on an hourly basis.

 

In order to serve as the Associate Chief Judge, candidates will need to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Section 1-301 of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Code of Justice, which provide the Associate Chief Judge must: (1) be at least 25 years of age; (2) of high moral character and integrity; (3) never have been convicted of a criminal offense, or a traffic offense, for which punishment of imprisonment was imposed; (4) not have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Services; (5) be physically able to carry out the duties of the office and (6) possess a Juris Doctor from an ABA-accredited law school and be a member in good standing of the bar of any State or Federal court.

 

Applicants must submit a resume, three writing samples, and three references. Any offer of employment will be contingent upon Tribal, State, and Federal Criminal Background Checks.

 

Applications and inquiries regarding the Associate Chief Judge position may be directed or submitted to Ms. Dellis M. Agard, Court Administrator, Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court, via regular mail at PO Box 363, Fort Yates, North Dakota , 58538, or via e-mail at dagard@

standingrock.org.  Ms. Agard may be contacted, by telephone, at 701-854-7244.

 

The worksite for this position is located at the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court in Fort Yates, ND.  The Sitting Bull College Transit provides transportation services, at a nominal cost, to and from Bismarck, ND, Mobridge, SD, McLaughlin, SD and Selfridge, ND, in coordination with the Tribal Work Day, which is from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Central Time).

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter — Belcourt Public School District v. Davis

Here:

Belcourt Public School District Opening Brief

Tribal Response Brief

Belcourt Public School District Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter — Fort Yates Public School District No. 4 v. Murphy

Here:

Fort Yates School District Brief

CMB Brief

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Response Brief

Reply briefs TK

Fort Yates School District Reply Brief

Lower court materials here and here.

Federal Court Holds Tribal Courts May Adjudicate Claims against On-Rez Public Schools in North Dakota

Here are the materials in Belcourt Public School District v. Davis (D. N.D.):

19 Belcourt Motion for Summary J

19-6 TMAC Appellate Decision

26 Defendants Response

27 Belcourt Reply

33 DCT Order

And here is the opinion in Fort Yates Public School District #4 v. Murphy (D. N.D.):

40 DCT Order

We posted materials in this matter here.

Materials (so far) in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter involving Tort Claim against On-Reservation Public School

Here are the materials in Fort Yates Public School District #4 v. Murphy (D. N.D.):

Fort Yates School District TRO Brief

DCT OrderGrantingTRO-23Oct12

Murphy Motion to Dismiss

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Amicus Brief

Tribal court materials:

Fort Yates School District Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss

SRST Tribal Court Opinion

 

Kelley v. Kelley Soon to Be Argued in North Dakota Supreme Court; Tribal Court Jurisdiction Case

Issues: Appellant’s Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the district court erred when it found it had subject matter jurisdiction over the custody and parenting responsibilities of the parties’ minor child.
II. Whether the district court erred when it imposed a 5-year restraint on Karol Kelly’s ability to work in the insurance industry when the court lacked jurisdiction and such restraints are void under North Dakota law.
III. Whether the district court erred when it ordered Karol Kelly to pay $40,000 as a sanction for attorney fees for actions before the tribal court when it had no evidence on Richard Kelly’s fees relating to the tribal court action, and ordered that the entire amount be paid in 90 days.

Appellee’s Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the district court erred when it found it had subject matter jurisdiction over the custody and parenting responsibilities of the parties’ minor child.
II.Whether the district court erred when it ordered Karol not to have any contact with Kelly Insurance clients and insurance carriers doing business with Kelly Insurance for a 5-year restraining period.
III.Whether the district court erred when it ordered Karol Kelly to pay $40,000 as a sanction for attorney fees for failure to cooperate in preceding actions before the tribal court and ordered that the fee was to be paid in 90 days.


Briefs:

Farmers Union Oil v. Guggolz — Plains Commerce Bank Redux

This is a case before the same trial judge as in Plains Commerce Bank in the D.S.D. This one is a slip and fall, but Farmers Union Oil the defendant in tribal court at Standing Rock. The judge followed Plains Commerce Bank and many other similar decisions in requiring the exhaustion of tribal court remedies, but then he took an unfortunate potshot at the CA8 opinion in Plains Commerce Bank:

I have previously cited in this order and opinion the case of Plains Commerce. I was the trial judge in that case. The case was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As I read the appellate opinion, I was struck by the fact that such opinion would clearly and substantially broaden the jurisdiction of tribal courts in the Eighth Circuit. It would allow tribal courts to decide what common law principles were to be applied in tribal courts. This would be a significant expansion of tribal court jurisdiction in civil cases. In the past few days, I have noted that the United States Supreme Court has granted the petition of Plains Commerce for a writ of certiorari. Apparently, we will have further guidance from the Supreme Court.

Continue reading