swimmer Indian law blog

Village of Hobart Federal/State Anti-Indian Policy Briefing Workshop Please Show Up and Protest

Please show up and protest this workshop:

Federal/State Indian Policy Briefing Workshop

…Recent Rulings & Events in Federal Indian Policy

And their impact upon Wisconsin

DATE: Monday, October 31, 2011

TIME: 10:30 AM – 12:30 PM

LOCATION: CAPITOL BUILDING

RM. 415 NW

Madison, WI

WHO SHOULD ATTEND: State Legislators, legal counsels, Administrative Officials & Staff

The Village of Hobart has invited two Indian law experts to update legislators, legal counsels and Wisconsin administrative officials on recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions, and current trends in federal policy that impact the State of Wisconsin. Recent court rulings have significantly strengthened State sovereignty, constrained Executive Branch authority, and diminished the federal “trust” relationship with Indian Tribes. These are groundbreaking shifts in federal Indian policy that have state, county and local impacts specific to land status, fee-to-trust and “Indian country.”

The panelists are:

Hosts: Richard Heidel, President of the Village of Hobart Board of Trustees;

Donna Severson, Village Trustee

Panelists: Elaine Willman, Director of Community Development & Tribal Affairs for Village of Hobart; author of Going To Pieces - a narrative journey across 17 Indian reservations.

Frank Kowalkowski, (Davis & Kuelthau, Green Bay). Mr. Kowalkowski has a national Federal Indian law practice. He provides Indian law legal consultation to the Village of Hobart and other municipalities and businesses in Wisconsin, as well as clients in several other states. His representation includes matters in federal court, state court, Tribal court and the Interior Board of Indian Appeals located in Washington, D.C.

Lana Marcussen, legal counsel to the Citizen's Equal Rights Alliance and Foundation since 1994. She has participated in briefing to the Supreme Court in Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Idaho (1996), Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997), Native Village of Venetie (1998), Nevada v Hicks (2001), Atkinson v. Shirley (2001) and continuing through City of Sherrill (2005) and Carcieri v. Salazar (2009). She has used federalism to effectively confront what were once considered benign extensions of federal authority in restoring and extending tribal sovereignty.

RSVP for Seating Availability: Elaine Willman, (elaine@hobart-wi.org) (920.615.2882)

CERA is a well know racist, anti-Indian organization founded on hate and fear. This organization seeks the destruction of Indian tribes. Please show up and let your voice be heard against hate and intolerance. The Village of Hobart has dedicated itself to trying to destroy the Oneida Indian Tribe. CERA is dedicated to destroying Indian County.

In the Matter of T. Dawson (unpublished) MIchigan Court of Appeals ICWA case

The Michigan Court of Appeals decided an ICWA "active efforts" case in an unpublished decision on September 22, 2011. The Father appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his daughter. The Father has two arguments: (1) termination was not in the child's best interest (here the father had sexually molested the child) and that a guardianship was in the best interest, and (2) the State had failed to provide "active efforts" and remedial services under 25 USC 1901 et. seq. Under ICWA, Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or termination of partental rights to and Indian child shall satisfy the active efforts and rehabilitative effort to prevent breakup of family.

Here the Choctaw Nation intervened and agreed that active efforts have been met. This is a good outcome for this case, but there are many cases where parents are struggling to reunite with their children and the state abosolutely fails to provide active efforts.

Typically, courts will go a long way to avoid "active efforts" and in most the state government is more interested in getting the children adopted so they do not have to fund foster care.

Here is a link to the case:

http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/dawson.pdf

Vann v. Salazar (Cherokee Nation Freedman Case)

The Cherokee Nation filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the Freedmen against the Cherokee Nation for failing to name a necessary and  indispensable party. The indispensable party is the Cherokee Nation because they are a sovereign Indian Nation they cannot be forced to become a party to this lawsuit. The principle here under Rule 19 is that you must have parties necessary in the case to decide the case.