tribal court – Page 15

Treaty Rights and the Cherokee Freedmen Decision

August 25, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This isn’t a post on the merits of the Freedmen case, but instead a rumination about the import of U.S.–tribal treaty rights in tribal courts. Generally, do treaty rights have legal import in tribal court?

My reading of the Nash case (here) is that anyone claiming to assert treaty rights against an Indian tribe who was a party to the treaty may be foreclosed from bringing those claims without the presence of the United States (the other party to the treaty) as a party to the litigation. If that reading has broad implications for Indian treaties, then no treaty right could effectively be litigated in tribal court without the presence of the United States. An odd result, to be sure.

This isn’t a purely academic question. A few years back, the Ninth Circuit wondered why it was still deciding treaty rights subproceedings in United States v. Washington that don’t involve either the United States or Washington, or really any of the underlying issues about the treaty right. Many of the cases are intertribal conflicts. There may be an intertribal court for the Puget Sound treaty tribes someday, all without the presence of the United States. And properly so.

This all suggests the United States doesn’t need to be a party to treaty rights litigation in every case.

Continue reading →

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to State/Tribal Court ICWA Jurisdiction in Alaska

July 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in S.P. v. Native Village of Minto.

Here are the materials:

Parks Appellant Brief

Minto Appellee Brief

Parks Reply Brief

Federal Supplemental Brief

Minto Supplemental Brief

Leech Lake Band 2011 Election Declared Invalid by Tribal Court

July 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

Leech Lake Election Case

Illinois State Bar Findings in Disciplinary Action against Former Little River Band Attorney

June 8, 2011June 8, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Available here (Illinois website), and pdf:

ARDC Complaint

This document details the findings of fact, and makes recommendations for discipline. We posted relevant documents on this matter here and here and here.

The six counts are as follows (details are in the document linked above):

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Meriel Coleman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Joseph Henry Martin, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on May 2, 1995, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

Continue reading →

Seminole Tribe Sued in Federal Court under ICRA by Business Partner for Failure to Establish a Tribal Court

June 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in South Florida Entertainment Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (S.D. Fla.):

SFE Complaint

Here’s the first paragraph:

1. This action, in material part, seeks declaratory relief wherein SFLE and individual Plaintiffs seek to have this Court declare that the Tribe has violated the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § § 1301 and 1302 (the “ICRA”) and to order further necessary and proper relief in favor of SFLE pursuant to 28 US.C. §2202. Among other things, SFLE believes and contends that the Tribe is incapable of meeting its quasi-Constitutional obligation to provide due process of law under the ICRA due to its admitted failure to create and maintain a tribal court system or any other legitimate forum for ensuring compliance with the ICRA and the Constitutional-like protections it is intended to grant to members and non-Tribal members, alike. SFLE also seeks a declaration concerning whether the Tribe’s administration of the issuance of Tribal Liquor Licenses comports with or violates federal law, namely 18 U.S.C. §§1154, 1156 and 1161. SFLE also seeks a judicial declaration that the Tribe has contractually waived sovereign immunity with respect to disputes involving the Tribe, the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino which it operates and owns, SPR, and its commercial tenants and subtenants, like SFLE as well as the individual Plaintiffs. Moreover, each Plaintiff alleges that the Tribe solely controls SPR, as indicated in several pieces of correspondence with Plaintiffs. Proof of such control is reflected in Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “C” where the Defendant Tribe specifically alleges that it does business as SPR. The individual’s Plaintiffs, PENDLETON and PRIOLO, also allege damages for various tort claims against both Defendants, as stated within the various Counts herein below.

Miccosukee Supplemental Brief in Support of Cert Petition in Miccosukee v. Kraus-Anderson

June 5, 2011June 4, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Miccosukee Supplemental Brief

Sprint Communications v. Native American Telecom & Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court

June 4, 2011June 3, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is that opinion:

Sprint v Native American Telecom — Denial of PI.

An excerpt:

Defendant, Native American Telecom (NAT), moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin plaintiff, Sprint Communications Company, from withholding interstate switched access charges that NAT has already billed or will bill to Sprint in the future. Sprint resists the motion. The motion is denied.

Eastern Band Cherokee v. Wolfe et al. — Attorney Disbarment

April 28, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Eastern Band tribal court disbarred Robert Saunooke, an Eastern Band member and a Florida-licensed attorney, for noncompliance with the tribal court licensure rule that requires a North Carolina bar license.

Here is that order:

order on disbarment 042711

Briefing in Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp.

March 14, 2011March 12, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are those materials (so far):

Kroner Brief

Oneida Brief

An excerpt from the petitioner’s brief:

This is an appeal from Judgments entered August 31, 2010 and September 10, 2010, in the Circuit Court of Brown County, Donald R. Zuidmulder, Circuit Judge. (R. 38, A. App 1, R. 41, A. App 3.) The Circuit Court held a hearing on August 31, 2010. (R. 54, A. App 4-16.) The Circuit Court granted Defendant-Respondent [*3] Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s (“OSGC’s”) Motion to Transfer to Tribal Court pursuant to Sec. 801.54, and later denied the Motion to Reconsider of Plaintiff-Appellant John Kroner, concluding as a matter of law that OSGC’s motion provided sufficient evidence and argument to warrant transfer of this case to the Oneida Tribal Judicial System (“Tribal Court”). (R. 38, A. App 1, R. 41, A. App 3, R. 54, A. App 4-16.)