Geroux v. Assurant: Federal Court Remand to Tribal Court Reconsideration Denied

Materials here:

DCT Order on Motion to Reconsider

Union Security Insurance Motion for Reconsideration

Geroux Brief in Opposition to Reconsideration

Earlier materials in this interesting case are here.

U.S. v. Crampton — Former LRB Boxing Commissioner Sentenced for Threatening Tribe

News article here, via Pechanga.

Materials:

Crampton Indictment

Crampton Sentencing Memorandum

Crampton Sentence

Sault Tribe RICO Suit against Vendors

Here are the materials in Sault Ste. Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Hamilton (W.D. Mich.):

Sault Tribe DCT Order

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

Sault Tribe Additional Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

Sault Tribe Complaint

United States v. Fred Paquin Indictment

As reported on Indianz yesterday, former Sault Tribe chief of police and board member Fred Paquin has been indicted in federal court. Here is the indictment:

Fred Paquin Indictment

Steiger v. Little River Casino — Title VII Complaint

Here are the early materials in Steiger v. Little River Casino Resort, a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Steiger Complaint

LRB Motion to Dismiss

Not sure how the plaintiff’s lawyer thinks the federal court has jurisdiction over this. The complaint just cites Title VII, without any argument as to why it could possibly apply to a tribe or its business. Other doing the same have been subject to Rule 11 sanctions (see our paper here).

Michigan Case re: Tribal Court to Federal Court Removal and Remand

This case, Geroux v. Assurant, Inc., started as a tribal court complaint against two insurance companies seeking benefits for long-term disability, but was removed by the defendants to federal court. The district court remanded the case back to tribal court under the principles of the tribal court exhaustion doctrine.

Tribal Court Complaint against Assurant

Tribal Court Complaint against Union Security

Geroux Motion to Remand

Union Security Co. Answer and Counterclaim

Assurant Answer

Geroux Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

Union Security Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Geroux v Assurant DCT Remand Order

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians’ Summary Judgment Motion against NLRB

Previous materials are here, including the complaint and exhibits.

LRB Motion for Summary Judgment

LRB Statement of Material Facts

NLRB Opposition

LRB Reply

NLRB Surreply

Building Project on St. Mary’s River Rejected

Here is the opinion in Schmidt v. Army Corps, from the Western District of Michigan, in which the court upheld a decision by the Army Corps not to allow a building project on the St. Mary’s River, near what the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority says is a fish spawning ground.

schmidt-memo-opinion

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction over Ontonagon Reservation in the Upper Peninsula

Kudos to Jeff Davis for this one! The United States Attorney’s Office in Grand Rapids is prosecuting the taking of tribal timber on trust land on the Ontonagon Reservation of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The defendant argued the reservation was no longer reservation land, but Judge Robert Holmes Bell rejected the motion. Interesting case!

genschow-indictment

genschow-motion-to-dismiss

us-response-to-motion-to-dismiss-genschow

ontonagon-band-constitution

united-states-v-genschow-dct-opinion

Margaret Chiara Press Release re: US Attorney Firings Report

Grand Rapids, Michigan –  September 29, 2008

On September 29, 2008 the Department of Justice issued its report on the removal of nine United States Attorneys.  It concluded that Margaret M. Chiara, United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, had been dismissed because of performance related issues.

The conclusion does not follow from the facts disclosed by the investigation.  Rather, the investigation details how an intentionally malicious campaign of false allegations, insidious rumors and trumped up allegations of favoritism was successful in the achievement of its goal: the undermining and ultimate destruction of Margaret Chiara as United States Attorney.  The investigators clearly trace the spread of false and malicious rumors of a lesbian relationship and favoritism to Joan and Lloyd Meyer, two long-time assistants in Ms. Chiara’s office, who had long been frustrated in their own ambitions to be the United States Attorney, or a federal district judge. The only seemingly independent verification of the Meyers’ allegations of favoritism was that of Chuck Gross, a friend of both Meyers and close confidant of Joan Meyer, who was living in their Ada home while they were on detail to Washington, D.C. (and who didn’t feel constrained by that friendship from authoring and advocating for a strong performance evaluation of Joan Meyer.)

Continue reading