Tulalip Tribes

Washington Federal Court Declines to Expand Stillaguamish Fishing Territory

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):

271 Upper Skagit Rule 52c Motion.pdfDownload
273 Tulalip Response.pdfDownload
288 Stillaguamish Brief.pdfDownload
289 Squaxin Island Brief.pdfDownload
290 Skokomish Brief.pdfDownload
291 Sklallam Tribes Brief.pdfDownload
292 Nisqually Brief.pdfDownload
293 Swinomish Brief.pdfDownload
295 Tulalip Brief.pdfDownload
298 Upper Skagit Brief.pdfDownload
312 DCT Order.pdfDownload

Prior posts here, here, and here.

Judge Martinez Orders Trial in Stillaguamish U&A Subproceeding

Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Skagit canoes pulled up onto beach near Coupeville, Whidbey Island Washington, ca. 1895

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):

170 Stillaguamish Motion

174 Upper Skagit Motion

176 Tulalip Motion

178 Stillaguamish Motion re Laches

179 Swinomish Motion

191 Upper Skagit Response to 170

193 Stillaguamish Response to 179

194 Stillaguamish Response to 176

195 Stillaguamish Response to 174

198 Swinomish Response to 170

200 Tulalip Response to 170

204 Upper Skagit Reply in Support of 174

205 Tulalip Reply in Support of 176

206 Stillaguamish Reply in Support of 170

207 Swinomish Reply in Support of 179

252-dct-orderDownload

State Court Dismisses Charges Against Hazen Shopbell, Anthony Paul On Treaty Grounds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State v. Shopbell (Wash. Super. Ct.):

7. CrR 8.3(b) Motion to Dismiss for Governmental Misconduct

11. Memo In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Bad Faith

13. CrR 8.3(c) Motion to Dismiss

29. Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Suppress Evidence and or Dismiss

30. Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss

38. Supplemental Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss

42. Motion for Bill of Particulars

46. Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars

52. Joint Reply In Support of Motion for Bill of Particulars

63. Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c)

66. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Dismiss per CrR 8.3

68. Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

69. Response to Pretrial Dismissal Motions

70. Reply on Pretrial Dismissal Motions

There was no written ruling, but from the bench the Judge explained:

“My decision is consistent with the heart of the Treaty & Rafeedie Consent Decree, preserving Treaty rights that were gained many years ago.  This court shouldn’t be involved in those issues.”

Federal Court Issues Decision in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 19-01

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:

61 S’Klallam Response

63 Upper Skagit Response

67 Lummi Response

68 Tulalip Response

69 Swinomish Response

74 Swinomish Reply

76 Upper Skagit Reply

77 Reply

78 Tulalip Reply

79 DCT Order

Earlier briefs here.

Washington COA Orders Additional Proceedings in Shopbell Criminal Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Shopbell (Wash. Ct. App. — Div. 1):

Unpublished Opinion

Appellant Brief

Respondent Brief

Reply

Prior post here.

Tulalip, Suquamish, Swinomish, and Upper Skagit Reach Settlement with State on Crab Harvest Estimates

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 89-03 (W.D. Wash.):

14809 Joint Stipulation

14810 DCT Order

Three Tribes Withdraw Laches as a Defense in US v. Washington Subproceeding 17-03

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the notices of withdrawal of laches as a defense in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):

Sub 17-03 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Notice of Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Sub 17-03 The Tulalip Tribes Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Sub 17-03 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Prior posts here and here.

As I wrote in 2015, I see this as a good thing — the possibility that the laches defense could be used against tribal treaty rights has hung like a smoggy haze over Indian country ever since 2005. It staggers me to think that tribes would do this to themselves for short-term, and probably illusory, gain.

Wash. Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Snohomish County Deputy’s Killing of Tulalip Man

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lacy v. Snohomish County (Wash. Ct. App.):

4-15-19 Appellant’s Opening Brief

5-17-19 Respondent Cross Appellant’s Brief

6-14-19 Appellant’s Reply Brief

10-5-20 Opinion

Prior post here.

Briefs in Lummi Crab Fishing Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:

51 Swinomish Brief

55 Upper Skagit Brief

57 Tulalip Tribes Brief

59 Lummi Brief

Prior post here.