Additional Update on Nooksack Disenrollments; Did Tribe Bar Plaintiff’s Counsel from Proceeding with Disenrollment Defense?

Here are the new materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Belmont v. Kelly Case Management Order Re Motion for Judicial Notice

 

Belmont v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S Galanda

Belmont v. Kelly Fourth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Motion for Judicial Notice

The first document above references Nooksack council resolutions 16-27 and 16-28. 16-27, enacted on February 24, provides:

Whenever the Tribal Council becomes aware that any advocate’s behavior and/or practices reflect so poorly upon the proper administration of justice before the Nooksack Tribal Court of the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Tribal Council may revoke any privileges provided to such person(s) and bar them from further practice in any administrative tribunal before the Nooksack Indian Tribe or proceeding before the Nooksack Tribal Court. Tribal Council may hold such hearings as necessary to ensure that such behavior and/or practices are proven; or, as may be necessary to correct such past behavior and/or practices.

In the judicial order above, the court described 16-28:

On the same date, February 24, 2016, the Nooksack Tribal Council enacted Resolution #16-28, barring Gabriel Galanda and other attorneys in the Galanda Broadman law firm from practicing in the Nooksack Tribal Court and from engaging in business on Nooksack Tribal lands.

The court ordered the tribal defendants to produce an affidavit describing the process offered the Galanda firm before issuing 16-28, on the theory that the Indian Civil Rights Act requires at least some process.

We will continue to observe the troubling doings at Nooksack.