November 21, 2009
From Indianz:
A member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians says the tribal council should only serve part time.
Jaime Barrientoz thinks the chairman position should remain a full-time job. But the other six members of the council are wasting time and money, he says.
“I think that they have too much time on their hands,” Barrientoz told The Traverse City Record-Eagle. “Put them back to part time and you’d save about $1 million a year.”
Barrientoz served on the council when it was a part-time job. Full-time status started in 1998.
Get the Story:
Keep reading →
November 20, 2009
The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a motion for a new trial — Jennings v Jones.
November 19, 2009
Here is the opinion in Boye v. United States (Fed. Cl.) — Boye v United States
An excerpt:
In the above-captioned action, plaintiffs allege that they have not been paid the wages and benefits to which they are entitled pursuant to various self-determination contracts executed by their employer, the Navajo Nation, and the United States Department of the Interior (“Department of the Interior”). They bring their claim as purported third-party beneficiaries. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). As explained in more detail below, the court grants defendant’s motion.
November 18, 2009
Here — Zephier v United States Cert Petition
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to recognize the existence of a trust corpus in property and beneficiary rights for and on behalf of the lineal descendants of the Loyal Mdewakantons, from the March 3, 1863 Act and that the existing trust corpus was intended to be implemented and enhanced by the subsequent legislation found in the Appropriations Acts of 1888, 1889, 1890 and 1980.
2. Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel as set forth in New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) and thus allowed the United States to argue the existence of a trust and obtain a favorable result in the Eighth Circuit, Cermak v. United States, 478 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2007) and to argue the lack of a trust and obtain a favorable result in the Federal Circuit, Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2009), thereby creating a split in the Circuits.
The Wolfchild cert petition is here.
November 18, 2009
This has no chance of being granted, but it’s interesting anyway — Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation v United States Cert Petition.
The question presented:
The claims in this action were brought on behalf of representatives of persons formerly held in bondage by the so-called “Five Civilized” Indian Tribes, hereinafter “Freedmen.” The Freedmen were beneficiaries of the various trusts established between the Five Civilized Tribes and the United States by 1866 treaties, which were later modified by further allotments in 1902. The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erroneously affirmed dismissal under28 U.S.C. §2501 of Petitioners’ claims without addressing in any manner whatsoever Petitioners’ Repudiation Rule argument that the statute of limitations does not begin to run on claims by a trust beneficiary like Petitioners’, against a trustee, here the United States, to enforce the terms of a trust until, the trustee repudiates the trust relationship, something that to date the United States has not done.
Here are the district court materials and and the Federal Circuit decision.
November 18, 2009
Here is the opinion — Brown v State of Hawaii (D. Haw.)
An excerpt:
Plaintiff should be commended for bringing his NAGPRA claim. As the State Defendants’ counsel acknowledged in his opening statement, the claim effectively brought certain issues of noncompliance to light. See 10/21/09 Tr. 96:17-22 (St.’ Defs.’ Counsel) (“In a very perverse way, my client has to thank Mr. Brown for bringing this case. Because although SHPD had been under the belief and understanding that NAGPRA did not apply to it, unless there was a finding on federal or tribal lands, there apparently is a dispute as to whether or not that is an accurate interpretation of the law.”). It appears that, as a direct result of this litigation, SHPD has initiated consultation with the National NAGPRA Program in an effort to come into compliance with the [*26] statute. Nevertheless, the Court may only issue permanent injunctive relief upon a proper showing. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n, 452 F.3d at 1137 n.10. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that injunctive relief is appropriately issued in his favor at this time because he has failed to show that he has suffered irreparable harm or that he will likely suffer such harm immediately in the absence of injunctive relief. See id.
November 17, 2009
Michigan State University Press has published our edited collection, “Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30.” The press website is here. The book is also available at amazon.
