Here are the materials in Resighini Rancheria v. Bonham (N.D. Cal.):
Cal. Fish and Game Dept. Motion to Dismiss
Yurok tribe
Yurok Tribal Court Staff Attorney Position
POSITION SUMMARY:
Under the general supervision of the Tribal Court Director (and Chief Judge), the Staff Attorney will assist the Chief Judge and the Yurok Tribal Court in its legal matters. The Staff Attorney will complete a variety of professional assignments on behalf of the Yurok Tribal Court as assigned. The Staff Attorney will work closely with the Chief Judge and department staff.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
- Perform legal research including extensive analysis of legal positions. Determine and apply legal principles and precedents to problems and issues.
- Provides legal advice, counsel, and assistance to the Yurok Tribal Court in relation to its duties and the operation of the Court and its programs, projects and services.
- Assist in legal matters related to negotiating agreements with county justice agencies including Superior Courts in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, and the drafting of Memoranda of Understanding outlining the roles and responsibilities of partner agencies.
- Provides opinions on drafts, documents, and policies, and attends meetings concerning the Court.
- Prepares legal briefs, develops strategy, arguments and testimony in preparation for presentation of a case.
- May appear in court hearings to represent the concurrent jurisdictional positions of the Tribal Court.
- Performs a variety of professional legal work in child support civil and criminal cases.
- Assists in the coordination of Tribal Court programs.
NYTs: A Vision of Reviving Tribal Ways in a Remote Corner of California (Yurok)
Hoopa Valley Tribe Loses Claim to Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Funds
Here is the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States.
Briefs:
Lower court materials are here.
Oregon Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Case Involving Yurok Children
Here is the opinion in In re J.S.B., where the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision terminating parental rights. An excerpt:
The issue then is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the juvenile court was required at the August hearing to make the assessments required by ORS 419B.476(2)(a). Mother, for her part, sought reunification at both the June and August hearings. The juvenile court, apparently relying on its earlier findings in the June hearing, did not undertake to reconsider mother’s circumstances for purposes of reunification at the time of the August hearing, even though that opportunity through mother’s advocacy presented itself. We conclude, in light of the policies of the ICWA to afford an opportunity for reunification at every dispositional step that could result in contributing to the permanent removal of children subject to its protections, that it was incumbent on the juvenile court at the August hearing to either make new findings under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) or to find that the circumstances regarding reunification had not changed since the last hearing held under ORS 419.476(2)(a). Otherwise, the policies articulated in 25 USC sections 1901 and 1902 could be frustrated in a hearing held pursuant to ORS 419.476(2)(b) and (c) by a court’s reliance to deny reunification on circumstances that no longer exist at the time of the instant hearing. For that reason, we conclude that the August 2008 judgments are also defective and must also be reversed so that the juvenile court can make the determinations that ICWA contempates.
Yurok Juvenile Wins Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
The case is In re Edward S., from the California appellate court, first district. An excerpt:
We shall conclude that Hauschild’s performance was deficient in that he (1) failed to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, (2) sought an inadequate continuance based on a mistake of law, and, (3) failed to move for a substitution of counsel knowing he was unable to devote the time and resources necessary to properly defend appellant. Further concluding that these deficiencies were prejudicial, we shall reverse the judgment.
Hoopa Loses Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act Claim
Here is the opinion in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States (hoopa-v-us-dct-order). Classic prisoner’s dilemma case. Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk had been compressed together by the United States in the 19th century, and have been disputing the resources of the Hoopa Valley “square” for decades. Congress settled the thing in 1988, splitting the resources, on the condition that each party would waive the right to continue to sue. Hoopa waived its rights and received its share. Yurok did not, and sued, and lost. But it looks like they still get the money. Odd case.
Turtle Talk 