In a suit over price valuation for gas charged by federal and Indian
lessors to oil company lessees, the district court's finding that
the department of the Interior's gas valuation rule, which
disallowed the deduction of marketing costs, was unlawful, was
reversed.

OIL & GAS LAW

     INDEP. PETROLEUM ASS'N OF AMERICA v. DEWITT, No. 00-5404, 00-5405
     (D.C. Cir February 08, 2002)

     In a suit over price valuation for gas charged by federal and
Indian
     lessors to oil company lessees, the district court's finding that
     the department of the Interior's gas valuation rule, which
     disallowed the deduction of marketing costs, was unlawful, was
     reversed.

     To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
     http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/005404a.html

WSBA WEBSITE UPDATE - FEBRUARY 2002

* Board of Governors
  -- RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
REGULATION INFRINGING ON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
http://www.wsba.org/bog/2002/01/resolution.htm
  -- Resolution Regarding Drug Abuse Policies in Washington State:
http://www.wsba.org/2001/drugpolicyresolution.htm
  -- Nominating Petitions: http://www.wsba.org/bog/petition/

* Discipline 2000 Task Force - Final ELC & Other Rules Changes as Submitted
to Supreme Court: http://www.wsba.org/2001/d2k/

* Information on "How To Have a Highly Effective Law Firm" presented by Law
Office EXPO, Management and Technology Institute: http://www.wsba.org/lomi/

* New in the Web Store: Creed of Professionalism Mounted Print; Consumer
Information Pamphlets: http://www.wsba.org/store

* Year 2002 information on Licensing, Admissions & Bar Exam:
http://www.wsba.org/licensing/

* February 2002 Bar News: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/02/
-- Washington's 10 Most Significant Labor and Employment Cases by Juliet
Wehr Jones
-- Advising Clients: The Truth about Trademarks by Timothy B. McCormack
-- Speak softly and Carry a Big Shtick: Litigating the Oral Contract in
Washington by Steven A. Reisler and Dawn S. Perry
-- Executive's Report: The Glass-Ceiling Survey by Lisa M. Stone
-- My Turn: Washington's Administration of Misdemeanor Justice by Darren
Nienaber
-- Lawyer Services: Astute Attorneys Utilize Paralegals by Forest Collins
-- Observations from the Bench" The Discipline Notice: Getting a Client's
Consent by Jeff Tolman
-- Practice Tips: A Mediator's Observations by Louis D. Peterson

----

Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
Seattle, WA 98121-2330
email: randyw@...
phone: 206-733-5913
---
See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store



---
* Feel free to forward this message appropriately
* If this was forwarded to you, please subscribe by sending a blank email to
"subscribe-wsba-web@..."
* To unsubscribe, reply to "unsubscribe-wsba-web@..."

Greetings,

My email address is changing from dcbonga@...   to
DavidCBonga@...


fslafountaine wrote:

> INDIAN LAW
>
>     SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATION v. DEPT.
> HEALTH
>     AND HUMAN SERVS., No. 98-36022, 99-35951 (9th Cir. February 04,
>     2002)
>     Because the department's interpretation of the congressional
>     appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent
>     under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
>     the district court's award of additional funding reversed.
>
>     To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
>
>     [PDF File]
>     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9836022p.pdf
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

INDIAN LAW

     SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATION v. DEPT.
HEALTH
     AND HUMAN SERVS., No. 98-36022, 99-35951 (9th Cir. February 04,
     2002)
     Because the department's interpretation of the congressional
     appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent
     under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
     the district court's award of additional funding reversed.

     To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

     [PDF File]
     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9836022p.pdf

That's it!  Thanks very much.  Tom

Randy Winn wrote:

> hey thanks
>
> - what a typo to make! It's supposed to be http://pro.wsba.org (I keep
> thinking it should be http://mcle.wsba.org but that's not in my control.)
>
> Thanks again - does http://pro.wsba.org work for you?
>
> Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
> Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
> 2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
> Seattle, WA 98121-2330
> email: randyw@...
> phone: 206-733-5913
> ---
> See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Ehrlichman [mailto:tehrlichman@...]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:49 PM
> To: WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WSBA-Indian-Law] [wsba-web] WSBA Website update
>
>
> Your link to the CLE website does not appear to be working.
> Tom Ehrlichman
> 425-258-4212
>
> Randy Winn wrote:
>
>
>>WSBA Website Update
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>* New and enhanced links to ethics resources:
>>http://www.wsba.org/lasd/ethics.htm
>>  (Lawyers' Service Department - Professional Responsibility/Ethics
>>
> Program)
>
>>* Drug Policy Resolution:
>>
> http://www.wsba.org/2001/drugpolicyresolution.htm
>
>>  (from the WSBA Board of Governors)
>>
>>* Order "8 Myths/Truths About Lawyers" right from the web:
>>http://store.yahoo.com/wsbastore/8mytablawpac.html
>>  (fact-filled pamphlet dispelling popular anti-lawyer myths)
>>
>>* January 2002 Bar News: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ including
>>- A Roadmap to the WSBA Legislative Process :
>>http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/stone.htm
>>  (by Gail Stone)
>>- President's Corner: On the BOG Plate: WSBA Policy Issues to Debate:
>>http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/pres.htm
>>  (by Dale L. Carlisle)
>>- Proud to Be a Lawyer: The Noble Profession:
>>http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/larson.htm
>>  (by David A. Larson)
>>- Practice Tips: Keep the Claims Straight and the Parties Honest:
>>Eliminating the Fraud or Misrepresentation Claim from a Breach-of-Contract
>>Action : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/Loeser.htm
>>  (by by Derek W. Loeser)
>>- The Lawyer-to-Lawyer Program: Helping to Bridge the Gap from Law School
>>
> to
>
>>"Lawyering" : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/lasd.htm
>>  (by Stephen J. Henderson)
>>- Ethics & The Law: Lawyer Disciplinary Sanctions :
>>http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ethics.htm
>>  (by Barrie Althoff)
>>- and more!
>>
>>REMINDER: WSBA members - you may track and log your MCLE credits at
>>http://pro.mcle.org - there's no charge!
>>
>>----------
>>Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
>>Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
>>2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
>>Seattle, WA 98121-2330
>>email: randyw@...
>>phone: 206-733-5913
>>---
>>See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store
>>
>>---
>>* Feel free to forward this message appropriately
>>* If this was forwarded to you, please subscribe by sending a blank email
>>
> to "subscribe-wsba-web@..."
>
>>* To unsubscribe, reply to "unsubscribe-wsba-web@..."
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

hey thanks

- what a typo to make! It's supposed to be http://pro.wsba.org (I keep
thinking it should be http://mcle.wsba.org but that's not in my control.)

Thanks again - does http://pro.wsba.org work for you?

Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
Seattle, WA 98121-2330
email: randyw@...
phone: 206-733-5913
---
See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Ehrlichman [mailto:tehrlichman@...]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:49 PM
To: WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WSBA-Indian-Law] [wsba-web] WSBA Website update


Your link to the CLE website does not appear to be working.
Tom Ehrlichman
425-258-4212

Randy Winn wrote:

> WSBA Website Update
> ------------------------------------
>
> * New and enhanced links to ethics resources:
> http://www.wsba.org/lasd/ethics.htm
>   (Lawyers' Service Department - Professional Responsibility/Ethics
Program)
>
> * Drug Policy Resolution:
http://www.wsba.org/2001/drugpolicyresolution.htm
>   (from the WSBA Board of Governors)
>
> * Order "8 Myths/Truths About Lawyers" right from the web:
> http://store.yahoo.com/wsbastore/8mytablawpac.html
>   (fact-filled pamphlet dispelling popular anti-lawyer myths)
>
> * January 2002 Bar News: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ including
> - A Roadmap to the WSBA Legislative Process :
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/stone.htm
>   (by Gail Stone)
> - President's Corner: On the BOG Plate: WSBA Policy Issues to Debate:
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/pres.htm
>   (by Dale L. Carlisle)
> - Proud to Be a Lawyer: The Noble Profession:
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/larson.htm
>   (by David A. Larson)
> - Practice Tips: Keep the Claims Straight and the Parties Honest:
> Eliminating the Fraud or Misrepresentation Claim from a Breach-of-Contract
> Action : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/Loeser.htm
>   (by by Derek W. Loeser)
> - The Lawyer-to-Lawyer Program: Helping to Bridge the Gap from Law School
to
> "Lawyering" : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/lasd.htm
>   (by Stephen J. Henderson)
> - Ethics & The Law: Lawyer Disciplinary Sanctions :
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ethics.htm
>   (by Barrie Althoff)
> - and more!
>
> REMINDER: WSBA members - you may track and log your MCLE credits at
> http://pro.mcle.org - there's no charge!
>
> ----------
> Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
> Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
> 2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
> Seattle, WA 98121-2330
> email: randyw@...
> phone: 206-733-5913
> ---
> See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store
>
> ---
> * Feel free to forward this message appropriately
> * If this was forwarded to you, please subscribe by sending a blank email
to "subscribe-wsba-web@..."
> * To unsubscribe, reply to "unsubscribe-wsba-web@..."
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Your link to the CLE website does not appear to be working.
Tom Ehrlichman
425-258-4212

Randy Winn wrote:

> WSBA Website Update
> ------------------------------------
>
> * New and enhanced links to ethics resources:
> http://www.wsba.org/lasd/ethics.htm
>   (Lawyers' Service Department - Professional Responsibility/Ethics Program)
>
> * Drug Policy Resolution: http://www.wsba.org/2001/drugpolicyresolution.htm
>   (from the WSBA Board of Governors)
>
> * Order "8 Myths/Truths About Lawyers" right from the web:
> http://store.yahoo.com/wsbastore/8mytablawpac.html
>   (fact-filled pamphlet dispelling popular anti-lawyer myths)
>
> * January 2002 Bar News: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ including
> - A Roadmap to the WSBA Legislative Process :
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/stone.htm
>   (by Gail Stone)
> - President's Corner: On the BOG Plate: WSBA Policy Issues to Debate:
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/pres.htm
>   (by Dale L. Carlisle)
> - Proud to Be a Lawyer: The Noble Profession:
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/larson.htm
>   (by David A. Larson)
> - Practice Tips: Keep the Claims Straight and the Parties Honest:
> Eliminating the Fraud or Misrepresentation Claim from a Breach-of-Contract
> Action : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/Loeser.htm
>   (by by Derek W. Loeser)
> - The Lawyer-to-Lawyer Program: Helping to Bridge the Gap from Law School to
> "Lawyering" : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/lasd.htm
>   (by Stephen J. Henderson)
> - Ethics & The Law: Lawyer Disciplinary Sanctions :
> http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ethics.htm
>   (by Barrie Althoff)
> - and more!
>
> REMINDER: WSBA members - you may track and log your MCLE credits at
> http://pro.mcle.org - there's no charge!
>
> ----------
> Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
> Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
> 2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
> Seattle, WA 98121-2330
> email: randyw@...
> phone: 206-733-5913
> ---
> See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store
>
> ---
> * Feel free to forward this message appropriately
> * If this was forwarded to you, please subscribe by sending a blank email to
"subscribe-wsba-web@..."
> * To unsubscribe, reply to "unsubscribe-wsba-web@..."
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

WSBA Website Update
------------------------------------

* New and enhanced links to ethics resources:
http://www.wsba.org/lasd/ethics.htm
   (Lawyers' Service Department - Professional Responsibility/Ethics Program)

* Drug Policy Resolution: http://www.wsba.org/2001/drugpolicyresolution.htm
   (from the WSBA Board of Governors)

* Order "8 Myths/Truths About Lawyers" right from the web:
http://store.yahoo.com/wsbastore/8mytablawpac.html
   (fact-filled pamphlet dispelling popular anti-lawyer myths)

* January 2002 Bar News: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ including
- A Roadmap to the WSBA Legislative Process :
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/stone.htm
   (by Gail Stone)
- President's Corner: On the BOG Plate: WSBA Policy Issues to Debate:
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/pres.htm
   (by Dale L. Carlisle)
- Proud to Be a Lawyer: The Noble Profession:
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/larson.htm
   (by David A. Larson)
- Practice Tips: Keep the Claims Straight and the Parties Honest:
Eliminating the Fraud or Misrepresentation Claim from a Breach-of-Contract
Action : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/Loeser.htm
   (by by Derek W. Loeser)
- The Lawyer-to-Lawyer Program: Helping to Bridge the Gap from Law School to
"Lawyering" : http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/lasd.htm
   (by Stephen J. Henderson)
- Ethics & The Law: Lawyer Disciplinary Sanctions :
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2002/01/ethics.htm
   (by Barrie Althoff)
- and more!

REMINDER: WSBA members - you may track and log your MCLE credits at
http://pro.mcle.org - there's no charge!

----------
Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
Seattle, WA 98121-2330
email: randyw@...
phone: 206-733-5913
---
See the WSBA Store: http://www.wsba.org/store

---
* Feel free to forward this message appropriately
* If this was forwarded to you, please subscribe by sending a blank email to
"subscribe-wsba-web@..."
* To unsubscribe, reply to "unsubscribe-wsba-web@..."

Indian tribal community has sovereign immunity against claim arising
from detention of plaintiffs trespassing on the community's property.

CIVIL RIGHTS, INDIAN LAW

LINNEEN v. GILA RIVER INDIAN CMTY., No. 00-15120 (9th Cir. January
07, 2002)

Indian tribal community has sovereign immunity against claim arising
from detention of plaintiffs trespassing on the community's property.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to: [PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0015120p.pdf

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSS B. LINNEEN, husband; KIM
ANN LINNEEN, wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY;
MARY THOMAS, Governor of the No. 00-15120
Gila River Indian Community;
D.C. No.
RALPH ANDREWS, Gila River Tribal CV-97-02708-RGS
Ranger, in his official and
individual capacity; UNITED OPINION
STATESOF AMERICA; INTERIOR,
DEPARTMENTOF; BUDDY SHAPP,
BIA Officer, in his individual and
official capacity; INDIAN AFFAIRS,
Bureau of,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
September 13, 2001--San Francisco, California
Filed January 7, 2002
Before: Henry A. Politz,* William A. Fletcher, and
Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
*Honorable Henry A. Politz, Senior Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit,
sitting

Opinion by Judge William A. Fletcher
156

COUNSEL
James P. Mueller, Douglas V. Drury, MUELLER & DRURY,
Scottsdale, Arizona, Tom Rawles, Linda S. Rawles, Phoenix,
Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
157

Scott H. Gan, Tom R. Clark, MESCH, CLARK & ROTH-SCHILD,
Tucson, Arizona, Robert Alan Hershey, Tucson,
Arizona, Arthur G. Garcia, AUSA, Phoenix, Arizona, for the
defendants-appelles.
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Ross and Kim Linneen filed a complaint in dis-trict
court seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983,
the United States Constitution, Arizona state law, and the
bylaws of the Gila River Indian Community, based on allega-tions
that a Gila ranger unlawfully detained and threatened
them during an encounter on Gila land. The district court dis-missed
the complaint as to the Gila River Indian Community,
and as to Mary Thomas, Governor of the Community, and
Ralph Andrews, Gila River Tribal Ranger, in their official
capacities, based on tribal sovereign immunity. We have juris-diction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

I

The Linneens drove into the desert south of Chandler, Ari-zona
on January 1, 1996, to take their dogs for a walk. The
location they chose was on property belonging to the Gila
River Indian Community ("Community"). Buddy Shapp of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs spotted them, and Ralph
Andrews, a ranger for the Community, was dispatched to
investigate.

The Linneens allege that the following events took place:
When Andrews arrived, he jumped out of his truck, drew his
gun, and crouched behind the truck door. He ordered Ross to
turn around and put his arms on his head. He searched the
Linneens and their car. He kept the Linneens in custody for

158

three hours, during which time he told them that they were
guilty of various offenses that would result in jail time; told
them that their possessions would be impounded and their
dogs destroyed; held a gun to their heads; complained about
injustices suffered by Native Americans at the hands of Cau-casians;
and lectured them on religious doctrine. Andrews
finally released the Linneens after citing them for criminal
trespass. The charges against the Linneens were later dis-missed.

The Linneens filed a complaint in federal district court,
naming as defendants the Gila Community, Mary Thomas,
Andrews, the United States, the Department of Interior, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Shapp. The complaint alleged
six federal and state law causes of action, for which the Linn-eens
sought compensatory damages of $8 million, in addition
to costs and attorneys' fees.

The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdic-tion
for the claims against the Community, and for the claims
against Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities,
because of tribal sovereign immunity. The court held further
that it lacked jurisdiction over Andrews, to the extent he was
sued in his individual capacity, because the Linneens had not
exhausted their tribal remedies. The court dismissed the
claims against the United States based on failure to comply
with the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Attorneys for the tribe and the Linneens filed a joint motion
and stipulation for entry of final judgment in district court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Pursuant to
the stipulation, the district court entered a final judgment
granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as to the
Community, and as to Thomas and Andrews in their official
capacities. The Linneens timely appealed this judgment.

II

We review de novo the district court's conclusion that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Wilson v. A.H. Belo Corp.,

159

87 F.3d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1996). We also review de novo
questions of tribal sovereign immunity. United States v.
James, 980 F.2d 1314, 1319 (9th Cir. 1992).

III

The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the dis-trict
court correctly held that tribal sovereign immunity bars
the Linneens' claims against the Community, and against
Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities. Because the
Linneens' suit against the Community and against Thomas
and Andrews in their official capacities is a suit against the
tribe, it is barred by tribal sovereign immunity unless that
immunity has been abrogated or waived.

"Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing
the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by
sovereign powers." Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S.
49, 58 (1978). "This immunity extends to tribal officials when
acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their
authority." United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1013 n.8
(9th Cir. 1981). In Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufactur-ing
Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998), the
Supreme Court recently precluded a company from suing an
Indian tribe in state court based on a commercial obligation,
explaining that "[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe
is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit
or the tribe has waived its immunity."

Here, the suit arises from defendant Andrews' alleged
misconduct during his official duties as a tribal ranger on the
Community's land. Congress has not abrogated tribal sover-eign
immunity for such acts committed on tribal land by a
tribal officer.

Further, the Linneens have not shown that the Commu-nity
has waived its immunity. See Pan American Co. v. Syc-uan
Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416, 419 (9th Cir.

160

1989) (stating the "fundamental principle that tribal sovereign
immunity remains intact unless surrendered in express and
unequivocal terms"). They contend that the Gila Corporate
Charter contains such a waiver, but we disagree. The charter
provides:

The Community . . . shall have the following corpo-rate
powers . . . : . . . To sue and to be sued in courts
of competent jurisdiction within the United States;
but the grant or exercise of such power to sue and be
sued shall not be deemed a consent by the said Com-munity
or by the United States to the levy of any
judgment, lien or attachment upon the property of
the Community other than income or chattels spe-cially
pledged or assigned.

(Emphasis added.). Such "sue and be sued" clauses waive
immunity with respect to a tribe's corporate activities, but not
with respect to its governmental activities. See Ute Distribu-tion
Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe, 149 F.3d 1260, 1268 (10th Cir.
1998); S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, 674 P.2d 1376, 1382-83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
The Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 476, authorizes
Indian tribes to organize as a constitutional entity, and § 477
of the Act authorizes organization of a corporate entity.
Ramey Constr. Co. v. Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation,
673 F.2d 315, 320 (10th Cir. 1982). Most courts that have
considered the issue have recognized the distinctness of these
two entities. Id. (citing numerous cases). The "sue and be
sued" clause in the Community's corporate charter in no way
affects the sovereign immunity of the Community as a consti-tutional,
or governmental, entity. We find no waiver here
because the alleged actions that form the basis of this suit are
clearly governmental rather than corporate in nature.

We therefore AFFIRM the district court's dismissal.
161

I have worked on a couple of these, both projects that would have involved the Tulalip Tribes.  One of them went way down the road but never occurred because of market and business changes.  Some years ago I also worked on a project that inolved the Umatilla Tribes, the Yakamas and two other tribes in a proposed conservation financing for BPA through the tribes.  That one also didn't occur because BPA pulled out.  But I have done a lot of work on structuring tribal financings for or in connection with electrical projects and I'd be pleased to talk with you about it.  My phone number is 206-447-8965.  Also, Jeff Nave of our Spokane office is very familiar with these types of financings and has also done a number of bond issues for tribes and tribal entities.

Hugh Spitzer
Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC
1111 Third Ave.
Suite 3400
Seattle WA 98101

-----Original Message-----
From: JDW [mailto:jdw@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 2:44 PM
To: WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WSBA-Indian-Law] Power Plant Deals

I am writing to find out which Washington tribes have been recently
approached about electrical generation projects on their lands.
 
The Umatilla Tribes are attempting to build a natural gas fired power plant
on tribal trust land in Oregon along the Columbia River.  As a result, I've
been invited to speak on Tribal generation projects at a CLE in Seattle on
Jan. 18th called "Buying and Selling Electricity in the West".  Last year, I
presented a primer for developers interested in approaching tribes about
such projects.  This year, I'll be focusing more on legal/tax structure and
financing of such projects.  Besides the Umatilla project, I'll be
discussing what I know about the Ft. Mojave Tribal (AZ) and the Moapa Tribal
(NV) projects.

I would love to know which Washington tribes are seriously looking at such
projects and the current status of such discussions, especially in regards
to the use of wind or other renewables.   If you are an attorney involved in
such a project, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me. 

Thanks!

J.D. Williams
Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
Pendleton, OR 97801
541.966.2023
541.278.7462 fax
jdw@...

NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is protected
by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law and
is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
copies.

IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views and
opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/5QSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Mr. Williams, in case you're not already in contact with them, I suggest the
ATNI EDC (Economic Development Corporation) probably has the most up-to-date
info. about which ones of the ATNI member tribes are looking at electrical
generation projects.

Mary B. Verner
(former Natural Resources Director for the Spokane Tribe; now independent
contractor while I care for my mother in Georgia)
P.O. Box 736
Fitzgerald, GA  31750
866-256-5183
maryv@...


----- Original Message -----
From: JDW <jdw@...>
To: <WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: [WSBA-Indian-Law] Power Plant Deals


> I am writing to find out which Washington tribes have been recently
> approached about electrical generation projects on their lands.
>
> The Umatilla Tribes are attempting to build a natural gas fired power
plant
> on tribal trust land in Oregon along the Columbia River.  As a result,
I've
> been invited to speak on Tribal generation projects at a CLE in Seattle on
> Jan. 18th called "Buying and Selling Electricity in the West".  Last year,
I
> presented a primer for developers interested in approaching tribes about
> such projects.  This year, I'll be focusing more on legal/tax structure
and
> financing of such projects.  Besides the Umatilla project, I'll be
> discussing what I know about the Ft. Mojave Tribal (AZ) and the Moapa
Tribal
> (NV) projects.
>
> I would love to know which Washington tribes are seriously looking at such
> projects and the current status of such discussions, especially in regards
> to the use of wind or other renewables.   If you are an attorney involved
in
> such a project, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me.
>
> Thanks!
>
> J.D. Williams
> Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
> Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
> P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
> Pendleton, OR 97801
> 541.966.2023
> 541.278.7462 fax
> jdw@...
>
> NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
> contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is
protected
> by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for
the
> use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
> reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law
and
> is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
> this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
> copies.
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views
and
> opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
> opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I am writing to find out which Washington tribes have been recently
approached about electrical generation projects on their lands.

The Umatilla Tribes are attempting to build a natural gas fired power plant
on tribal trust land in Oregon along the Columbia River.  As a result, I've
been invited to speak on Tribal generation projects at a CLE in Seattle on
Jan. 18th called "Buying and Selling Electricity in the West".  Last year, I
presented a primer for developers interested in approaching tribes about
such projects.  This year, I'll be focusing more on legal/tax structure and
financing of such projects.  Besides the Umatilla project, I'll be
discussing what I know about the Ft. Mojave Tribal (AZ) and the Moapa Tribal
(NV) projects.

I would love to know which Washington tribes are seriously looking at such
projects and the current status of such discussions, especially in regards
to the use of wind or other renewables.   If you are an attorney involved in
such a project, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me.

Thanks!

J.D. Williams
Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
Pendleton, OR 97801
541.966.2023
541.278.7462 fax
jdw@...

NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is protected
by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law and
is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
copies.



IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views and
opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.

Public Law 280, 18 USC 1162(a), which gives several states criminal
and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, does not allow a
state to execute a search warrant on an Indian tribe.

INDIAN LAW

BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE v. COUNTY OF INYO, No. 01-15007 (9th Cir.
January 04, 2002)

Public Law 280, 18 USC 1162(a), which gives several states criminal
and civil jurisdiction over reservation Indians, does not allow a
state to execute a search warrant on an Indian tribe.

     To read the full text of this opinion, go to: [PDF File]
     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115007p.pdf

INDIAN LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

DAWAVENDEWA v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRIC. IMPROVEMENT AND POWER
DIST., No 00-16787 (9th Cir. January 02, 2002)

Indian tribe and tribal officials have sovereign immunity from Title
VII claims and are indispensable parties to Title VII claims against
parties that lease land from tribes with preferential provisions to
hire tribal members.

     To read the full text of this opinion, go to: [PDF File]
     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016787p.pdf

12/26/01 USA v. William Billadeau

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/011061p.pdf
Opinion
U.S. Court of Appeals
Case No. 01-1061
District of North Dakota
Criminal case - criminal law. The crimes for which defendant, a non-
Indian, was stopped (drunk driving and speeding) were assimilated
crimes under the Assimilative Crimes Act, and tribal officer was
engaged in the performance of his duties when the defendant
interfered with the officer; district court erred in dismissing the
indictment for interfering with a federal officer in the performance
of his duties.

*********
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1061
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
William Glenn Billadeau, * District of North Dakota.
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: October 18, 2001
Filed: December 26, 2001
___________
Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
___________
HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
The government appeals the district court's dismissal of an
indictment against
William Glenn Billadeau. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse
the judgment
of the district court, and we remand for reinstatement of the
indictment.
Billadeau was charged with forcibly resisting, opposing, impeding, and
interfering with a federal officer engaged in the performance of his
official duties, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. The indictment alleged that
Billadeau "fled in a motor
vehicle after Bureau of Indian Affairs [(BIA)] Police Officer Jeff
White stopped the
vehicle within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, upon
-2-
suspicion that the driver was under the influence of an intoxicating
substance and
speeding." Billadeau, a non-Indian, was driving on a state highway
within the
reservation. Officer White observed that Billadeau's driving was
erratic, and that at
least one oncoming vehicle had to move out of his way to avoid a
collision. Officer
White followed Billadeau in his patrol car and signaled him to stop,
which he did.
When Officer White approached, Billadeau asked whether he had been
cross-deputized
by the county sheriff, to which Officer White responded in the
negative.
Billadeau then advised him that the sheriff could find him at his
home, and drove
away. Officer White pursued Billadeau to his home, which is also
within the
reservation, where he arrested him for interfering with a federal
officer engaged in the
performance of his official duties.
The district court granted Billadeau's motion to dismiss the
indictment,
concluding that a non-Indian's commission of traffic offenses on
Indian land was
punishable only under state law, which Officer White lacked authority
to enforce.
Billadeau's conduct after being stopped was not a violation of
section 111, the court
reasoned, because Officer White was not engaged in the performance of
his official
duties when he stopped Billadeau.
On appeal, the government argues that the district court erred in
dismissing the
indictment. Having reviewed the dismissal de novo, see United States
v. Ferro, 252
F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2001), we agree.
A BIA officer has a statutory duty to arrest a suspect who commits an
offense
in Indian country in the officer's presence. See 25 U.S.C. § 2803(3)
(A). The General
Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, creates federal jurisdiction over
crimes committed by
non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. It incorporates the
Assimilative
Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13, which provides that when conduct
which would
violate state law occurs on federal land, the relevant state law is
assimilated into
-2-
1 Indeed, the ACA expressly applies to "a conviction for operating a
motor
vehicle under the influence of a drug or alcohol." See 18 U.S.C. § 13
(b)(1). This
subsection was added by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No.
100-690,
§ 6477(a)(2), 102 Stat. 4181 (1988).
-3-
federal law unless there is already applicable federal law. See
United States v.
Ashley, 255 F.3d 907, 909 n.3 (8th Cir. 2001).
It is the law of this Circuit that the actions referenced in the
indictment, drunk
driving 1 and speeding on an Indian reservation, are assimilated. See
United States v.
Thunder Hawk, 127 F.3d 705, 707-09 (8th Cir. 1997) (South Dakota
offense of
driving under influence, when committed on federal land (Indian
reservation), is
assimilated under ACA); United States v. McMillan, 820 F.2d 251, 254
(8th Cir.)
(South Dakota offenses of driving while intoxicated, failing to stop
at intersections,
and driving in excess of speed limit, when committed on federal land
(Indian
reservation), are assimilated under ACA), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 898
(1987); see also
United States v. Doyle, 237 F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 2001) (Missouri
offense of
driving while intoxicated, when committed on federal land (military
base), is
assimilated under ACA). Officer White was therefore engaged in the
performance
of his official duties of enforcing federal law when he stopped
Billadeau.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, and we
remand for
reinstatement of the indictment.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR THE ROMANI REFUGEES IN IRELAND
- ANITA DOLINSKA AND HER SON !

http://www.petitiononline.com/anita/petition.html

Private companies did not suffer a taking when law that allowed them
to purchase a regional tribal corporation's Net Operating Losses
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was amended to allow
regional corporations to keep all their Net Operating Losses.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, INDIAN LAW

BAY VIEW, INC. v. US, No 00-5097 (Fed Cir. December 04, 2001)
Private companies did not suffer a taking when law that allowed them
to purchase a regional tribal corporation's Net Operating Losses
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was amended to allow
regional corporations to keep all their Net Operating Losses.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/005097.html

WSBA.ORG WEB SITE UPDATE

* New MCLE Tracking System Now Available: http://pro.wsba.org
A major new service for our members! Kudos to Scott, Neil, and the whole
I.T. department!

* WSBA Logo Items now available: http://www.wsba.org/store/
Just In Time for Holiday Giving!

* December 2001 Bar News: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2001/12/
Including:
-- Major Criminal Law Decisions of the United States Supreme Court 2000
Term: (Part 1 of 2) by Craig Hemmens:
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2001/12/hemmens.htm
-- Are Citations on the Way Down? The Case Against Footnotes  by Helen A.
Anderson: http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2001/12/anderson.htm
-- The New "Access to Family Law Court Records" Court Rule by J. Mark:
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2001/12/weiss.htm
-- Working With Our Colleagues in Neighboring States by Dale L. Carlisle,
WSBA President http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2001/12/pres.htm (reciprocity,
pro hac vice, and more)
-- Lawyer Services: The Bright Side of Recovery: Becoming Weller Than Well
by Mike Hoff   http://www.wsba.org/lasd/bn/dec-01.htm
-- New & Noteworthy: The Practice of Law Board :
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2001/12/welden.htm

Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
Seattle, WA 98121-2330
email: randyw@...
phone: 206-733-5913
---
Some New Every Day at Your State Bar's Website: http://www.wsba.org


---
* Feel free to forward this message appropriately
* If this was forwarded to you, please subscribe by sending a blank email to
"subscribe-wsba-web@..."
* To unsubscribe, reply to "unsubscribe-wsba-web@..."

There is not an implied private right of action under the former the
Indian Housing Act of 1988, 42 USC 1437aa-1437ff.

INDIAN LAW DEWAKUKU v. MARTINEZ, No 00-1587 (Fed Cir. November 15,
2001)

There is not an implied private right of action under the former the
Indian Housing Act of 1988, 42 USC 1437aa-1437ff.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/001587.html

Excerpt from opinion:

                           "CONCLUSION

The statutory language, structure, and legislative history of the IHA
do not expressly or impliedly create a private right of action
thereunder for plaintiffs like Dewakuku. The district court''s
conclusion to the contrary is erroneous and is hereby reversed.
Furthermore, because the ACC clearly states that no third party
action is created or justified by any of its provisions, Dewakuku
could not have reasonably relied on the "promises" in the ACC to
grant rights to her. Thus, the district court also erred in
concluding that Dewakuku is an intended beneficiary under the ACC.
The district court did not consider Dewakuku''s claim under the APA
because it deemed the relief afforded thereunder to be duplicative of
the relief it had already awarded. Because we have reversed the
district court''s determination regarding Dewakuku''s other claims,
we remand to the district court so that it can determine whether to
consider the APA claim."

Under the plain meaning of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act, plaintiff's conviction for a crime of
violence is an absolute bar to employment in a position that involves
regular contact with Indian children, and fact that it was set aside
under the Federal Youth Corrections Act does not remove him from the
Act's prohibition.

11/09/01 Johnson Bear Robe v. Larry Parker
Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals
Case No. 00-3998

District of South Dakota

Civil case - Indian law. Under the plain meaning of the Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, plaintiff's conviction
for a crime of violence is an absolute bar to employment in a
position that involves regular contact with Indian children, and fact
that it was set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act does
not remove him from the Act's prohibition.

The opinion can be found at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/003998p.pdf

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/43261_suquamish18.shtml

Neighbors sue to disband Suquamish tribe
Sovereign powers are resented by non-Indians in a pattern growing in U.S.
Thursday, October 18, 2001
By PAUL SHUKOVSKY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
The Suquamish Tribe wants to help impoverished members by building a
low-income housing project on its reservation. But affluent, non-Indian
neighbors along scenic Agate Passage don't like the idea.
So they are trying to force the tribe out of existence by filing suit in
U.S. District Court in Seattle. In their suit, the Angeline Avenue neighbors
assert that the tribe was improperly recognized by the United States.
And they are challenging the legitimacy of the boundaries of the
reservation, which is on the Kitsap Peninsula across from Bainbridge Island.

The suit reflects a burgeoning conflict across America between tribes
exercising their governmental powers and their non-Indian neighbors.
"These kinds of disputes are cropping up all over the country," said John
Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, an Indian
legal-rights organization based in Colorado.
Because of growth, more and more non-Indians are moving onto or near tribal
land. At the same time, tribes are exercising more political and economic
power.
Along Angeline Avenue, for instance, neighbors say they are tired of the
Suquamish Tribe's zoning and land-use policies. They don't want tribal
police stopping them for traffic violations. They say it's not fair because
they have no voice in tribal government, no vote in tribal elections.
But Scott Crowell, a tribal official, says that's a choice neighbors made
when they moved onto an Indian reservation.
"They chose to move onto a foreign jurisdiction," he said.
And he calls the lawsuit an affront to the tribe.
"They don't think we exist as a people," he said. "They don't believe we
exist as a government. But we're not going anywhere; we've been here
forever."
At times, the rhetoric has become racially charged. Tensions peaked in May
when vandals smashed a cross marking the grave of Chief Sealth, the
legendary Suquamish and Duwamish leader for whom Seattle is named.
A newspaper article about the tribe's planned housing project was found at
the scene. No one has been arrested.
Many Angeline Avenue residents, such as Tom Stoesser, say they were appalled
by the desecration of the grave.
And though Stoesser, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, says he does not begrudge
the tribe the opportunity to build a housing project, he worries about the
effects a new sewer system and additional traffic might have on his
neighborhood.
A deal being brokered by Kitsap County Commissioner Chris Endresen to build
a new access road bypassing Angeline Avenue would go a long way toward
salving his concerns. But the basic conflict would remain.
"This land is not really tribal," he said, waving an arm at Angeline Avenue.

"The problem is (the Suquamish) are a sovereign nation. They have their own
set of laws."
Because of the tribe's sovereign status, it does not have to comply with
Kitsap County zoning rules.
"They could put in 22 homes instead of two," Stoesser said.
Land was split up
The Suquamish land, known as the Port Madison Reservation, was established
by treaty in 1856.
Then, between 1886 and 1910, the United States split up most of the
reservation land into allotments to individual Native Americans that
ultimately resulted in a checkerboard of Indian and non-Indian ownership.
In 1903, the U.S. War Department acquired 70 acres of land from the tribe
for cannon emplacements overlooking Agate Passage, the future site of
Angeline Avenue.
In 1926, the War Department said it no longer needed the land and sold it to
a private company.
The lawsuit, filed by the Association of Property Owners/Residents of Port
Madison, says that the "allotments were intended to discourage Indians from
maintaining tribal relations ... to break up tribal land and terminate
tribal existence."
And Dennis Reynolds, a lawyer for the group, contends that the former
military parcel is no longer part of the reservation, and therefore, should
not be subject to the tribal council's jurisdiction.
But Ron Allen, chairman of the nearby Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and past
president of the National Congress of American Indians, says the lawsuit is
simply "another manifestation of American society's efforts to terminate and
assimilate Indian people."
"They just don't want a bunch of poor Indians around their neighborhood,"
Allen said of the neighbors who filed the lawsuit.
"The irony of it is that they are encroaching on Indian homeland -- trying
to drive Indians out of their own land."
'Pushed around'
Relations between the Suquamish tribe and their neighbors have frequently
been strained.
In the mid-1980s, the tribe failed in a lawsuit to gain title to the
tidelands in front of Angeline Avenue.
But in 1995, several Western Washington tribes, including the Suquamish, won
a federal court ruling that the tribes retain a treaty right to gather
shellfish on tidelands around Puget Sound.
That decision still rankles some along Angeline Avenue, who don't believe
Indian tribes should have such treaty rights or sovereign status.
Eighty-two-year-old Pierce Winston Davis has lived along Agate Passage for
39 years. He calls sovereignty a political decision made by Congress at
treaty times.
"It's wrong, and it could be righted," he said.
"We're tired of being pushed around by Indians. They are interfering with my
life. I don't need Indians suing me."
Davis' wife, May, agrees.
"The Indians should be treated the same as everyone else. And they should
jump through the same hoops as everyone else."
To the Davises, that means that the low-income housing project should be
subjected to the much more restrictive zoning of Kitsap County.
When the Angeline homeowners started moving in decades ago, Indian tribes,
including the Suquamish, didn't have much political power.
But as tribes gained economic clout from industries such as gaming, they
became more savvy and sophisticated in political and legal matters, and they
also had the money to hire lawyers.
"Whether we like it or not, they are taking full advantage of their
sovereignty in a way that they didn't do until the last couple of decades,"
said Endresen, the county commissioner.
When people from Angeline Avenue came to her asking that she stop the
low-income housing project, she had to say, "We don't have the power to do
that under federal law."
Following the rules
United Property Owners, a property rights group focusing on conflicts with
Indian tribes, grew out of the shellfish litigation that unfolded on beaches
such as the one along Angeline Avenue.
Now, the organization has members in 37 states.
"I believe that Indians have the right to control only the portions of their
reservations that are not privately owned," said Barb Lindsay, the group's
executive director.
"It is not fair to have zoning authority over people who have no voice or
vote in the government. It's a problem we are hearing about from states all
over the nation."
And Lindsay does not believe tribes should have special legal status.
But Allen, the former president of the National Congress of American
Indians, sees it differently.
"If you make a choice to live within an Indian reservation border, you must
learn to be respectful of the tribe, its culture and its authority to
protect its own interests," he said.
"If you have a problem with that, then make another choice.
"The Indians are not going to go anywhere," he said. "We now know how to
fight back, based on your rules."
© 1998-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

. . . the lawsuit was filed in the USDC in Tacoma, which is where suits
arising out of Kitsap County (which is where the Suquamish Tribe's Port
Madison Indian Reservation is located) are heard . . . for reasons I know
nothing about, the plaintiffs (UPO) delayed service on the tribe for an
extended period, though they may have completed service by now . . . Randy
Brown

----- Original Message -----
From: "Connie Sue Martin" <cmartin@...>
To: <WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: [WSBA-Indian-Law] Squamish Tribe and the United Property Owners


> There was an article about that in the Seattle PI on October 18, 2001.
The
> writer was Paul Shukovsky, and he said that the suit was filed in USDC in
> Seattle.  It is against the Suquamish Tribe, and the Suquamish tribal
> official quoted in the article is Scott Crowell.  The article should be
> available on-line on the PI's web site.
>
> Connie Sue Martin
> Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
> 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
> Seattle, WA 98104
> (206) 682-3333
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JDW [mailto:jdw@...]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WSBA-Indian-Law] Squamish Tribe and the United Property Owners
>
>
> Armand Minthorn, an elected representative of the Umatilla Tribes, who
also
> sits on the NAGPRA Review Committee, is getting questions from tribal
> leaders back east about a lawsuit filed by United Property Owners
> challenging federal recognition of the Suquamish Tribe.  I've checked the
> United Property Owners' website and it has nothing about such a suit.  Do
> any of you know of any such lawsuits against a Washington tribe?  If so,
can
> you point me to someone who can give me more information?  Thanks!
>
> J.D. Williams
> Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
> Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
> P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
> Pendleton, OR 97801
> 541.966.2023
> 541.278.7462 fax
> jdw@...
>
> NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
> contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is
protected
> by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for
the
> use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
> reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law
and
> is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
> this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
> copies.
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views
and
> opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
> opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear J.D. . . .

     . . . up until the 1st of October, I was the Chief Judge to the
Suquamish Tribe's Tribal Court . . . the U.P.O. and the Suquamish Tribe have
a long histroy of conflict . . . when the lawsuit was first filed, it
received a fair amount of local press coverage, but it was my understanding
that the plaintiffs delayed service for reasons that they only know about .
. . however, you might want to contact Scott Wheat, who is an attorney with
the tribe's legal department . . . he would be the guy who will represent
the tribe if and when they're actually served with something . . . Randy
Brown

There was an article about that in the Seattle PI on October 18, 2001.  The
writer was Paul Shukovsky, and he said that the suit was filed in USDC in
Seattle.  It is against the Suquamish Tribe, and the Suquamish tribal
official quoted in the article is Scott Crowell.  The article should be
available on-line on the PI's web site.

Connie Sue Martin
Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 682-3333

-----Original Message-----
From: JDW [mailto:jdw@...]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:19 PM
To: WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WSBA-Indian-Law] Squamish Tribe and the United Property Owners


Armand Minthorn, an elected representative of the Umatilla Tribes, who also
sits on the NAGPRA Review Committee, is getting questions from tribal
leaders back east about a lawsuit filed by United Property Owners
challenging federal recognition of the Suquamish Tribe.  I've checked the
United Property Owners' website and it has nothing about such a suit.  Do
any of you know of any such lawsuits against a Washington tribe?  If so, can
you point me to someone who can give me more information?  Thanks!

J.D. Williams
Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
Pendleton, OR 97801
541.966.2023
541.278.7462 fax
jdw@...

NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is protected
by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law and
is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
copies.



IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views and
opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

There was an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on October 18, 2001
entitled "Neighbors sue to disband Suquamish Tribe".  The article mentions
the suit and provides some background.  You should be able to find it in the
P-I archives.

-----Original Message-----
From: JDW [mailto:jdw@...]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:19 PM
To: WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WSBA-Indian-Law] Squamish Tribe and the United Property Owners


Armand Minthorn, an elected representative of the Umatilla Tribes, who also
sits on the NAGPRA Review Committee, is getting questions from tribal
leaders back east about a lawsuit filed by United Property Owners
challenging federal recognition of the Suquamish Tribe.  I've checked the
United Property Owners' website and it has nothing about such a suit.  Do
any of you know of any such lawsuits against a Washington tribe?  If so, can
you point me to someone who can give me more information?  Thanks!

J.D. Williams
Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
Pendleton, OR 97801
541.966.2023
541.278.7462 fax
jdw@...

NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is protected
by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law and
is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
copies.



IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views and
opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSBA-Indian-Law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Armand Minthorn, an elected representative of the Umatilla Tribes, who also
sits on the NAGPRA Review Committee, is getting questions from tribal
leaders back east about a lawsuit filed by United Property Owners
challenging federal recognition of the Suquamish Tribe.  I've checked the
United Property Owners' website and it has nothing about such a suit.  Do
any of you know of any such lawsuits against a Washington tribe?  If so, can
you point me to someone who can give me more information?  Thanks!

J.D. Williams
Managing Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 638, 73239 Confederated Way
Pendleton, OR 97801
541.966.2023
541.278.7462 fax
jdw@...

NOTICE: This email transmission, including any accompanying documents, may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is protected
by the attorney-client privilege.  The information is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that you any use of, or the taking of any action in
reliance on, the contents of this information may be a violation of law and
is strictly prohibited without our written approval.  If you have received
this transmission in error, please immediately notify us and delete all
copies.



IMPORTANT: This e-mail may contain information that represents the views and
opinions of the author and so may not necessarily reflect the views and
opinions of the C.T.U.I.R.  as an organization.

Hello!

I'm writing because I'm the administrator of "WSBA-Indian-Law", a service of
the WSBA's Indian Law Section. The Section Chair asked us to set up this
method of facilitating communication & cooperation among Section members.
Let me explain briefly how this works, and then I'll step out of the
discussion entirely.

If you send a message to WSBA-Indian-Law@yahoogroups.com, it will be logged
and then sent on to everyone on the list. ("Everyone" may not include every
section member, because some may choose not to participate, see below.)
Anyone who gets the message (and is on the list) may hit the "reply all"
button to send a reply that the list logs and sends on to everyone else. In
this way, Section members can discuss anything that you decide is Section
business: cases, resources, practice tips ... the scope of the conversation
is up to you. WSBA does not moderate the list (although of course there are
the obvious limits of suitability for a forum associated with WSBA. This has
never been a problem.)

If you are concerned about an excessive volume of email, I suggest a few
ways to controlling it. First, most email packages have a "Rules" feature
that you can use to automatically any email with a subject line starting
[WSBA-Indian-Law] into its own folder, for review at your leisure. Or, you
may change your WSBA-Indian-Law options to receive one "daily digest" of all
messages for the day, in one email. Or, you may change your options to
receive no email, and go to the WSBA-Indian-Law website from time to time to
see whether there are any messages that interest you. The latter two options
require a procedure of slight complexity, so contact me if they are your
choice. You may also choose to be dropped from the list, after which you'd
receive no more messages (and be unable to use the other features.)

Finally, WSBA-Indian-Law also supports a variety of other features: chat,
uploading files to share, etc. Doing this requires signing up with
WSBA-Indian-Law's host "Yahoo.com" which is free. Again, this has a few
complications so I suggest you give it a try and let me know if you run into
problems.

I sincerely hope that this resource is helpful to you in your practice of
law and generally.

Randall Winn, WSBA # 25833
Webmaster, Washington State Bar Association
2101 Fourth Ave - Fourth Floor
Seattle, WA 98121-2330
email: randyw@...
phone: 206-733-5913
---
If you don't know what ESJR 8208 is, you should see:
http://www.wsba.org/legislative/esjr8208/

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INDIAN LAW STATE OF MICHIGAN v. ENVT'L PROT.
AGENCY, No 99-1151 (D.C. Cir October 30, 2001) The Environmental
Protection Agency's 1999 revisions to 40 CFR 71 invalid under the
Clean Air Act in proposing to create and administer a federal
operating permits program for areas where it believes the Indian
country status is in question, and in proposing to make
jurisdictional determinations on an ad hoc basis rather than by
notice and comment.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/99-1151a.txt

Below are excerpts from the opinion:

"Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Edwards and Sentelle, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Sentelle.

Sentelle, Circuit Judge: State of Michigan, et al. (herein- after
petitioners), petition this Court for review of the Envi- ronmental
Protection Agency's ("EPA") 1999 revisions to the Part 71 federal
operating permit program rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 8247 (Feb. 19, 1999)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 71).1 Petition- ers argue that the EPA has
exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act"),
42 U.S.C. s 7401 et seq. (2000), in proposing to promulgate and
administer a federal
operating permits program for areas where EPA believes the Indian
country status is in question, and in proposing to make state/tribe
jurisdictional determinations on a case-by-case ba- sis rather than
through notice and comment rulemaking. Because we agree with
petitioners that EPA has exceeded its authority, we grant the
petition for review. " ***
***
"III. Conclusion

EPA must make jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Air Act.
It cannot simply declare a jurisdictional conflict and then implement
a federal program in the absence of clear state or tribal authority.
Congress specifically delin- eated a role for EPA and a role for
states and tribes in the Clean Air Act. Under the Act's plain
language, EPA's au- thority to implement a federal operating permits
program is premised on the failure of a state or tribe to implement
its own program, not some overarching national authority. See 42
U.S.C. ss 7601(d), 7661a. Where a valid state program exists, EPA may
implement a federal program only for Indian country itself, not for
lands the status of which EPA deems "in question." Thus, prior to
implementing any feder- al operating permits program EPA must
determine the scope of state and tribal jurisdiction.

In making such determinations EPA must use notice and comment
proceedings. The Act specifically provides for "no- tice and
opportunity for public comment" in approving or disapproving a state
plan, in whole or in part, and it requires "notice to the State"
whenever the "Administrator makes a determination that a permitting
authority is not adequately administering and enforcing a program, or
portion thereof." 42 U.S.C. ss 7661a(d)(1), (i)(1). This includes
determinations of "adequate authority," and thus determinations of
jurisdic- tion under the Act. Id. at s 7661a(d)(1). Because Con-
gress's intent is clear, EPA's proposed approach is simply contrary
to law. "

We grant the petition for review, vacate the portion of the 1999 Part
71 rules authorizing EPA to treat lands for which EPA has
deemed "Indian country" status to be "in question" as "Indian
country," and remand to the agency for proceed- ings consistent with
this opinion.

BIA Takes Over Nevada Tribal Court

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/news/1004599941.php

Feds take control of tribal court

ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 31st, 2001

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is taking control of the Fallon Paiute-
Shoshone Tribe''s criminal court system and will install its own
judge to hear cases because of ongoing local political feuds.

The tribe historically has hired its own judges but the BIA''s
Western Regional Office in Phoenix said it is assuming ""emergency""
judicial powers to ""protect the lives, people and property"" of
reservation residents and visitors for up to one year.

Assistant BIA Western Regional Director Barry Welch said the tribe
can still operate its tribal court for civil cases and some law and
order codes. But the BIA will hear all criminal cases on the
reservation east of Fallon.

""If there is a some civil matter that has to be taken care of they
can still go to tribal court,"" Welch told the Lahontan Valley News
and Fallon Eagle Standard.

The action follows the BIA decision in June to take over all law
enforcement duties on the reservation after some tribal members
claimed abuse at the hands of the previous tribal police force, which
has since been fired.

©© 2001 Reno Gazette-Journal