Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Federal Court Dismisses $10M Suit by Spirit Lake Members (“Committee for Understanding and Respect”) over Fighting Sioux Name and Logo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe ex rel. Committee of Understanding and Respect v. NCAA (D. N.D.):

DCT Order Granting NCAA Motion

NCAA Motion to Dismiss

Committee Response

NCAA Reply

We posted the complaint here.

Given what I saw in my two years at UND (here is a snippet), I can’t let this go without comment. I just returned from Boulder, attending a conference in honor of David Getches, the leader in American Indian treaty rights litigation. He fought for the very survival of Indian people and Indian tribes, for the right to fish guaranteed by treaty … really for the right to exist. I see this “Committee” assert treaty rights for something as pitiful as a university sports team’s name and logo, despite all of the negative consequences of this name and logo for UND students and faculty, and I am ashamed. I find this assertion of treaty rights deeply offensive. I assume that the 1969 treaty at issue was made in good faith, but treaties between Indian people and others are made for better things than this. So much has been done in good faith by the opponents and proponents of the name and logo. But nothing good can come from the name and logo after all that has happened. Absolutely nothing.

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe ex rel. Committee of Understanding and Respect v. NCAA Complaint

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here: Complaint

Ok, so is this really the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation? What is the Committee of Respect and Understanding? They are the same people who sued the State of North Dakota (unsuccessfully — Davidson v. State) in the last couple years seeking the same relief from the State Board of Education. Paragraph 4 of the complaint alleges they are “authorized by the Spirit Lake Tribe to act on its behalf and proceed in any legal manner it deems appropriate to assure that the University of North Dakota (UND) shall remain known as the ‘Fighting Sioux.'” Here is a link to Dr. Erich Longie’s blog, “Dakota Hoksina,” that strongly suggests the Committee of Respect and Understanding represents very few people at Spirit Lake and Standing Rock — and perhaps not the Nation, either. He probably doesn’t represent anyone either, but seems to have about the same authority as the Committee.

And who is “tribal attorney” Reed Soderstrom? His only prior Indian law experience appears to be in foreclosing on the mortgage of a Turtle Mountain Chippewa member, and his vehicle (Gustafson v Poitra and Ford Motor Credit v Poitra).

ICT coverage here.

What’s going on????

North Dakota Supreme Court Decides Kelly v. Kelly II

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion from yesterday, an ongoing divorce that involves members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The first Kelly case involved questions of tribal court jurisdiction.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Staff Attorney Announcement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Staff Attorney
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, N.D.

Fort Yates, ND. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Legal Department is accepting applications for Staff Attorney(s) to work under the supervision of the In-house Attorney to provide legal services and representation to the tribal government and various tribal departments, programs and entities.

Job qualifications for this job include excellent writing, research, oral advocacy, analytical and problem solving, and organizational skills; a strong academic record; the willingness and ability to handle a varied caseload and manage multiple projects simultaneously; and the willingness and ability to work with tribal, federal, state, and local leaders and agencies on a wide variety of legal issues.

Successful applicants must possess a J.D. degree and be licensed, or be able to be licensed, to practice law in North Dakota or South Dakota. Licensure in both states is preferred, but not required.

Relevant experience in Indian law matters is preferred.

Continue reading →

FCC Decision Supporting Standing Rock Telecommunications as “Eligible Telecommunications Carrier”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

FCC 11-102 Standing Rock Order on Reconsideration

Eighth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Embezzlement from Standing Rock Housing Authority

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Mees: US v Mees CA8 Opinion.

An excerpt:

Ladarana Mees pleaded guilty to theft concerning programs receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 120 months’ imprisonment. Mees appeals his sentence, asserting that the district court committed procedural error when it departed upwards from the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and when it considered ethnicity and other improper factors during sentencing. Mees also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Lonny Winrich on the UND Name Change

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Grand Forks Herald:

GRAND FORKS — If there’s one thing that’s clear in all the fog surrounding the Fighting Sioux name controversy, it’s that the Board of Higher Education has the authority to decide what will be done.

That’s what the North Dakota State Constitution says, as interpreted by the North Dakota Supreme Court. The court’s ruling also serves as a reminder that a modern democratic government is constrained by a constitution that delimits its powers.

Democracy is not to be found in a spontaneous plebiscite whenever there is an unpopular decision. Democracy means governing by the requirements of a constitution.

This brings up another point: The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe also is governed by a constitution. That constitution has no provision for — and gives no official standing to — the proposed referendum.

If the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is allowed to vote, any interpretation of the results will owe more to a hyperactive media than to any lawful authority. The duly elected tribal council speaks for the tribe, and I think the board has been wise to base its decisions on the actions of the tribal council.

The board has dealt with a very difficult and contentious issue. I doubt there is anyone, including board members, who is happy with all the twists and turns this problem has taken.

But the board has made its decision — which only it can do — based on a thoughtful consideration of all aspects of the issue. As North Dakotans, we cannot expect more from our public officials.

I, for one, want to express my thanks to the board members for their service in this tough situation.

Lonny Winrich

Winrich, a Democrat, represents District 18 in the North Dakota House.

UND Getting Closer to Recognizing Inevitable Name/Logo Change

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But oh so slowly….

From TV:

Bismarck, N.D. (AP) The chairman ofNorth Dakota‘s Board of Highereducation says it appears more likely that the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux nickname and logo will be changed.

Richie Smith is responding today to a letter from Standing Rock Sioux tribal chairman Charles Murphy.

The board wants the nickname issue resolved by the end of this month. Murphy’s letter says the nickname and logo issue isn’t a big priority for his administration.

Murphy also questions the board’s demand for a 30-year agreement to allow U-N-D to use the nickname and logo. He says the tribe is willing to discuss the issue “without deadlines and without stipulations.” Smith says board members want to get the issue resolved. Board member Grant Shaft says he doesn’t think there’s much willingness to extend a decision deadline beyond Dec. 31.

Continue reading →

Kelly v. Kelly — North Dakota Supreme Court on State Court Jurisdiction over Indian/Non-Indian Marriage

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Kelly v. Kelly. An excerpt:

Richard Kelly appealed from a district court judgment granting him a divorce from Karol Kelly but concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the incidents of the marriage. We reverse and remand, concluding the district court had concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court to adjudicate the incidents of the parties’ marriage.

And the materials:

kelly-appellant-brief

kelly-appellee-brief

kelly-reply-brief

Standing Rock Housing Authority v. EEOC — TRO Case against Administrative Subpoena Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This case involved an administrative subpoena issued by the EEOC against the Standing Rock Housing Authority over claims of sex discrimination. The District of North Dakota declined to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the case was not ripe.

standing-rock-complaint

eeoc-motion-to-dismiss

standing-rock-response

eeoc-reply-brief

standing-rock-v-eeoc-dct-order