' National Center for State courts 11111111111111111111111111llllllllllllllllllllllllllIIlII1IIIll 4185 00321701 U~ILJURISDICTION OF TRIBALAND STATECOURTS:

Conference Proceedings

c

;my ;my \ . June 30-July 2,1991 . Stouffer Madison Hotel Seattle, Washington

---COtiFCRENCI OF

I CCJClllFF >'' ' lUSTlCES m

NAI~JA , CML JURISDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS: FROM CONFLICT TO COMMON GROUND

A National Conference

June 30-July 2, 1991 9 Stouffer Madison Hotel Seattle, Washington

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS REPORT

Edited by

Linda K. Ridge, Staff Associate Institute for Court Management of the National Center for State Courts 1331 Seventeenth Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 293-3063

This document was developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI-91-028-B-011). Points of view expressed herein are those of the conference speakers and participants and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.

Library

NP13 300 Newport Ave. Williamsburg, VA 23 1 82 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444~44~4444~~44~444444

Page

Acknowledgments iv Preface V

I. TEXTS OF ADDRESSES Keynote Address: Judge Monroe Gunn McKay 1 Tribal Sovereignty and the Administration of Justice in Indian Country: U. S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 7 Facing the Future: Challenges and Solutions: Judge William A. Thorne, Jr. (Porno) 10

11. CONFERENCE SESSION SUMMARIES Exploring The Relationship 13 Defining The Issues 16 Conflicts in Context: Identifying Jurisdictional Concerns 19

111. STATE ACTION PLAN SUMMARIES/RECOMMENDATIONS 24

APPENDICES

A - Conference Agenda/Program 39 B - Coordinating Council Members 46 Participant List 48 Faculty/Staff Roster 67

... -111- A cknowledgem ents

The conference, "Civil Jurisdiction of Tribal and State Courts: From Conflict to Common Ground," held June 30- July 2, 1991 in Seattle, Washington, was sponsored by the National Center for State Courts, Conference of Chief Justices, National American Indian Court Judges Association, and the American Bar Association's National Conference of Special Court Judges. Funding for the conference was provided by the State Justice Institute, with supplemental funding from the Otto Bremer Foundation of Minnesota.

The conference, the culmination of a 30-month project on state-tribal court relations funded by SJI, was planned and organized by the Coordinating Council that has guided this project, "Civil Jurisdiction of Tribal and State Courts: Research and Leadership Consensus Building," since its inception. Those who served as members of this council include: Washington State Appellate Justice (ret.) Vernon R. Pearson (Council and Conference Chair), North Carolina Chief Justice James G. Exum (Vice-Chair), Chief Judge Charles R. Cloud (Norfolk General District Court, Virginia), Chief Judge Bruce S. Jenkins (U. S. District Court, Utah), Professor Ralph Johnson (University of Washington School of Law, Washington), Hilda A. Manuel (Director, Branch of Judicial Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C.), William L. McDonald (Administrative Director of Courts, Arizona), F. Browning Pipestem (Indian Attorney/Judge, Oklahoma), Judge Thomas E. Schulz (Superior Court, Alaska), Chief Justice Tom Tso (Navajo Nation, Arizona), Jay V. White (Attorney, Washington), Jeanne S. Whiteing (Attorney, Colorado), and Judge Roger L. Wollman (U. S. Appellate Court, South Dakota).

The National Center for State Courts coordinated and staffed the planning process and the conference, with assistance from Denise Kilborn of the Washington Supreme Court. Project Director, H. Ted Rubin, Senior Staff Attorney, Institute for Court Management of the National Center for State Courts, Denver, served as the Conference Director. He was aided by Linda K. Ridge, Staff Associate, ICM/NCSC. ICM/NCSC staff Jo Ann Kent and Christine Ortiz provided organizational and on-site support for the conference. Jo Ann Kent also provided valuable assistance with the format and content of the conference proceedings. The Coordinating Council developed the conference sessions and selected speakers. Council members also served as conference moderators and speakers as well.

The national conference on tribal-state court relations was evaluated by participants as a striking success. It attracted 240 participants from all regions of the U. S. and from Canada. The success of the conference can be attributed to the concerted effort and guidance of the Coordinating Council, the excellence and dedication of conference speakers, moderators, and discussion leaders, and the strong support provided by the Conference of Chief Justices, Indian judicial groups, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is hoped that these efforts will spur continued work in this area that strengthens coordination and communication efforts between tribal and state courts.

-iv- Preface

The Civil Jurisdiction of Tribal and State Courts conference was designed to build on research findings and demonstration forums developed under a 30-month State Justice Institute-funded project administered by the National Center for State Courts. The national conference represented the culmination of this effort to explore the complex issues surrounding the resolution of civil jurisdiction issues in federally-recognized Indian country, and the nature of the tribal-state court relationship concerning these issues.

Project research involved the development of a typology of the 32 states containing federally-recognized Indian country through administration of mail and telephone surveys of officials from both tribal and state court systems. This research found that, while there are similarities and differences between types of civil jurisdiction disputes that arise in the states, there is evidence that informal working agreements between the judges of the two court systems, the education of judges and lawyers as to the respective authority of the two court systems, legislation that clarifies full faith and credit or comity, and formal agreements between the two governments can reduce jurisdictional conflicts. The aim of the national conference was to help inform officials from both governments as well as federal representatives, of the issues, of the methods, of the progress, and of the positive prospect for helping both court systems be more effective and efficient.

Spotlighted at the conference were the efforts of three states in this regard - Arizona, Oklahoma, and Washington. These states conducted "demonstration forums" during the project's second year that developed and initiated an action agenda with a range of strategies to reduce disputed cases. The forums, appointed by the state chief justice, included tribal court officials and a consultant. They represented a model approach to collaboration to resolve common problems and present or resolve jurisdictional disputes that occur in these two court systems.

The national conference proved to be a landmark event in the advancement of tribal and state court relationships around issues of civil jurisdiction. Further progress in this area depends, to a large degree, on the initiative taken by conferees to plan and implement various communication and problem-solving mechanisms in their own states, particularly those demonstrated by the state forums. It was the goal of this conference to engender other collaborative forums, and diversified approaches in the different states that brought different peoples together to address these issues in good faith and in trust. Through the publication of this conference proceedings volume and other project-related publications, it is hoped that the issue of tribal-state court relations will remain at the forefront of states' intergovernmental agendas for action.

H. Ted Rubin Conference Director October I991

-V- KEYNOTE ADDRESS Monday, July I, 1991 8:30 am. - 9:30 am. 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Speaker: Hon. Monroe Gunn McKay, Judge U. S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Utah

There's a Tumbuka proverb that expresses my Now, in the Book of Amos, we read "when feelings on this occasion. The surprise is to be vision ceaseth, the people perish. I am going to invited to speak to such a distinguished and, given avoid the nitty-gritty which will be more ably the nature of the meeting, pioneering group of presented by your presenters and participants today. people. Translated, the proverb says "this is such a In fact, almost all of you will be better informed wonderful surprise, it's like a gift of porridge from about those details than I will be. I wish to talk your mother-in-law." There is another Tumbuka more about what I see as a vision which can serve proverb that expresses the downside of this more as inspiration for what is being done today. experience which I will just give to you in English, "I feel like hair in the nostrils, I am useless, but as Vision has two main parts. One it is optimistic long as I am here, I might just as well hang and it looks to the future with hope, and the second around." Finally, if you don't like what you get, is long range in the way it looks at things. And I don't blame your program people. There is another am so pleased to be here in the infancy of what you Tumbuka proverb which says "do not pity the poor are trying to do here today with problems that have snake, he is.the one who decidcd to send someone existed for more than 300 years. But you are in the else to fetch his hair." infancy of these kinds of solutions and instead of pacing up and down in the prison of your I am happy to be in Washington, and to our circumstances, you are attacking your future with Washington hosts I express my appreciation. My whatever collective resources you have to put wife, Lucy, who is here with me, was born just south together. I am thrilled for you and thrilled for the of here in Castle Rock and grew up across the river nation and hopeful that it will produce satisfactory in Umatilla County. We have spent considerable solutions. time here. When I was an honest man and worked for a living, I used to come here as an electronic A key weakness in the United States' society mechanic and very few of you would be old enough today is our insistence on instant gratification in to know what I was doing here. With the collapse every aspect of our livcs. Junk bonds on the of the Berlin Wall, it's hard to remember how we economic end, a willingness to raid existing frantically put up the Dew Line, and 1 helpcd productive businesses to steal their treasuries while maintain out in the woods behind blankets in secret producing nothing useful or consumable for society, little corridors, the Distant Early Warning System except grecd. The domino effect of that greed and which was established across this corner of the instant gratification in the economic world is the United States to give us as early warning as we crisis which is really serious in our economic could against in-coming Communist missiles. structure. It's the greed in real estate, the greed in seizures and takeovers, instant gratification. And So, I'm happy to be here again with you. I that's what the savings and loan issue is about. The have tried to suppress the resentment thai I carry. Japancsc have suggested that the trouble with With reasonable credentials from a modest law America, partially true in my view, is not so much school, I tried to get an interview for a job in trade barriers, but that we have no patient capital. Seattle in 1959 and '60 and I couldn't even get an NOW,that is a valid indictment of the American interview, much less a job. So, I missed out in the economic system. You know about it in drugs and glorious development of the northwest. sex and family relationships and so on, our insistence on instant gratification. The warden at

-1- the Utah prison told me some time ago that perceptions. In my view, the greatest jurisdictional patience and child abuse are the two things that mistakes, beginning with Oliphant, extending to distinguish most people in prison from the rest of Duro, in my view, come not from an unavoidable us, the inability to wait and build for things of true mandate of the law, but from a majority of the value when some lesser trinket is immediately justices’ view about the real world. It wasn’t in the available to them. The story of Moses illustrates for record, it isn’t in the cases, it’s their view about it. me the lesson we must learn. For me it is one of the most profound stories in all of Judeo-Christian I find it absolutely astounding that in Duro, the literature (1 wish I were more richly endowed with court had no trouble finding constitutionally our Native American literature, because I’m sure I acceptable jurisdiction for tribal police to arrest and could find the parallels there). If I had charge and hold non-tribal members unsupervised by anybody, we went in the evening in the cool of the year, I including their own judges, while professing total could march from the land of Goshen, even with inability to find implied or directly, and I think one 666,OOO enrolled males, plus females, plus ducks and could readily find both, the power of those tribal chickens and geese and whatever they had, from the judicial officers to take action against, to sit in land of Goshen to the Promised Land in about two judgment on, those who come upon the reservation and a half weeks is my best estimate. How long and commit crimes. Even that stalwart opponent of were they there? 40 years. implied constitutional powers, who will remain unnamed, in Sinifh, had no trouble dismissing Pierce Now there was a reason for that. They wcren’t v. Sociely 011 Sislers because Pierce v. Society of lost. Moses had been out there, he’d traced every Sisters was based on that well-known principle of step of this territory when he was in exile. The implied constitutional right of parents to control Bible tells us why they were there so long. What their children. That’s not necessarily an indictment God had in mind, according to that story, was that of the courts. The fact is that from Moses to they had lived in an unacceptable social pattern in Justinian to the current Supreme Court, we have Goshen and they had to change in order to inherit had to rely on judgment. What I am attacking a land of milk and honey, which would truly be a today is that part of judgment which inflicts us all, land of milk and honey, because it isn’t grain and and against which we must fight as though we were bees but the way people live that makes a land of fighting sin, or whatever. That is the tendency to milk and honey. In order to effect the changes, belicve that what we do is superior and what everybody who knew Pharaoh and everybody who everyone else does is inferior. knew those who knew Pharaoh had to die, even though he had them there in the desert under very Let me start with the assumption that what we intense control. Now, that’s a true principle of do is superior. How can we make the assumptions evolution and development in society that it takes a in state and federal courts in the face of Operation minimum of 40 years to effect any major cultural Graylord in Chicago. When I was a student there change. It is so hard to sustain the energy and the in the OS, that kind of judicial misbehavior and courage and the vision to have a 40 year plan. We corruption was so well-known that it was a part of can’t even make a plan that lasts until supper every political campaign and it persisted until just a tonight. Well, I want to talk about that. few years ago under Operation Graylord and it isn’t all gone yet. Superiority of state courts? In terms Against this backdrop, let me turn to the of their justice, in terms of their integrity? Nobody subject of the conference... about relationships who lives along the east coast and has enough between tribal courts and state courts, although I money for a Florida vacation can talk about the tend to lump in federal courts, because they are superiority of Anglo courts when they’ve driven both a source possible of help and a source of through the speed traps that are there not to mischief in this area. To set the stage, 1 need to enforce the law but to raise revenues. Who has not talk about two cases which are not on the agenda been incensed or had a friend incensed by a child today. They are criminal cases relating to tribal custody case decided in state courts? jurisdiction. They are trend setters because you can’t talk about one without talking about the other because we are talking about attitudes and

-2- Now, I have other examples, there are myriad. unfounded in fact. What we may lack is I have lived on the down side of life. Now, I have information. Typically what happens. You come in, a slightly different view about how superior non- "Johnny hit me!" Whack, to Johnny. Well, if you tribal courts are to tribal courts. 1 wasn't stunned wait a minute or two and Johnny shows up bleeding, or surprised by what we saw in video in L. A. you find out the sequence of who hit who with what. Again, I am not indicting the system as totally It's information, reasonably acquired, which makes corrupt. All I am suggesting in the first part of my the wise judgement. Even dumb people like me proposition is that we tend to exaggerate the occasionally get it right. As my colleagues often significance and quality of our own systems and to say, if I write a good opinion, even a blind hog can minimize their faults. Let me now turn to the other root up an acorn from time to time. side of that proposition, to minimize the value of other systems. Against this backdrop, I'd like to develop what I call the George C. Marshall Principle. To remind I live in a community where a Native American you all who he is ...he was a general who was more mother had left the reservation and given her child statesman than general. After World War 11, he to an Anglo family because she was concerned recognized the problem that led to that war. It is about education, she couldn't raise the child, all of the traditional relationship between the conqueror the complications that we know arise in unwed and the conquered, that having subjugated them, we pregnancies. The family kept this little boy, raised grind it in. I remember one of the turning points in him as their own for ten years and then sought to American civil rights movement. Rap Brown came adopt him. I have a clear vision of the screaming along and I was scared enough of his predecessors. headlines in the local newspaper of the hysteria I knew nothing about the Black culture and what which broke out in the whole community. Whether Rap Brown said was, "If 1 don't dine at the table, you believe it or not, the Anglo court, the Supreme I'll kick the legs off from it." Is that in your self Court of the State of Utah, held that the Indian interest to have a Rap Brown out there while you Child Welfare Act governed and that this case must are trying to dine. I'll leave it to you to answer that be sent to the tribal court. They held that question. And Marshall recognized that. So what notwithstanding the stable, long-term, ten year did he propose? That experience should enlighten relationship between this child and his Anglo state and federal leaders when dealing with tribes parents, they were parents in practicum if not in whom we conquered. I know every unit of law. Because of our experience, Lucy and I didn't government is strapped for funds. But even in our share in that alarm. We have found higher levels of lean times it is in our long-range interest to build civilization in subsistence societies who live in mud and strengthen tribal courts. That task is not huts without doors than we often have found in our accomplished by just giving money. It can only be own culture. What happened ...it went to the tribal accomplished if we also respect the dignity of the court and they got a result which pleased nearly tribal courts. everybody. The Native American mother, apparently the tribes' officials, even the tribes' The conquerors reestablished and rebuilt, out equivalent to the ACLU, and the Anglo parents and of their self interest, the conquered. Now, you may the community. Roughly, what they did was that say, "well, those Japanese and Germans, they're they created a new extended family. They gave the taking over everything." Well, I bet if I look in your child to the parents with whom he had bonded and parking lot you're pretty happy with what has come they bonded the natural mother with that family. of that rebuilding of the conquered. Now, they are We do not have that kind of justice flexibility in the trading partners, not seething, angry subjugated Anglo jurisprudence of our society. people.

Unfortunately, our tendency is to say that good If I take your money without taking your work by the tribe is aberrational, whereas our bad dignity, I think I can deal with you. But if I take work is aberrational - not so. If we would open your dignity in the process, you will pursue me to our eyes and our hearts and our vision, we would the ends of the earth. And that's what it's about. know that to be true. The point I wish to make is It's understanding what the loss of dignity does, and this. Trust in the wisdom of tribal courts is not George C. Marshall was guided by that principle.

-3- Now, in our general, multi-cultural society, society? I hear you complaining about the roads there aren’t any majorities. There are just many out on the reservation and the way Indians drive. alliances of minorities. The way persons get access With fifty or more thousand people killed on to the government, the resources, the jobs, the national highways where there were no Indians in monies, the subsidies, the highways, is by forming the accident at all, what right have we to go around respectable alliances. When then say to the guy talking about Indians’ bad driving. who comes around wanting to get elected; he comes hat in hand to me, he has to come hat in hand Talk about alcoholism on the reservations. Of because he wants to be elected: “If you want my course it’s a problem, if you take anybody’s dignity vote, you must respond to my needs.” It is only away. I’ll tell you when lawyers start drinking, its when people have something that others need that about age 45. Think about it. You’ve been the they become good trading partners rather than toughest lawyer on the block for 17 or 18 years; you enemies. Unfortunately, the Native American stayed up until one o’clock every morning, had a population is such a small percentage of the whole couple of beers, went to bed, hit the office at six that they have little electoral bargaining power. and knew more about the record and the issues than any other living human being, and you’ve won The principle is that in an election it takes cases that nobody else could win, day after day after about ten percent of the total vote to make a day. Not just the ones you don’t need a lawyer for, significant difference. Here’s how it works. If but the ones that nobody else could win. Now, after anything is important enough to this group, it can 17 or 18 years, at age 45, energy goes down, and so get a 7-3 split. That means there is a four point you’re not up until one o’clock in the morning and margin which your group brings to the total vote in along comes some smart young pup right out of law the election. Most elections, notwithstanding your school. He’s just an “ignorant kid.“ He’s got one impressions of the electoral college, are won by less big case and you’re on the other side. Here’s the than two percent. So, if a group can tip a four chance to beat the champ. Who’s got the energy percent balance, somebody has to come hat in hand now? Maybe not as smart, maybe not as ring-wise, to them. Now, as long as we vigorously enforcc the but full of energy and vision and desire against Voting Rights Act, little by little, on a long-term somebody who is tired, not obviously tired, just tired program, blacks, who represent now about twelve a little. He knocks you off, or she does, she knocks percent of our society, can eventually through the you off. Maybe she has a case that should be won, electoral process as well as other processes, have a but what she didn’t have is a case that she could significant voice because they have bargaining power have won against you many years ago. Now in the electoral machinery which detcrmines policy. somewhcre deep inside you, something of your Not so Native Americans. image of yourself dies and she did it to you, but you can’t go punch her out. And, so what do you do? The census for 1W was not all in. It only had The occasional weekend binge on booze becomes a 38 states. It showed about two and one-half million drink every evening or then a drink before you go Native Americans. I don’t know, some of you will to court in the morning. That’s where alcohol know, what the ultimate figure is, but even if it is comes, it comes with the loss of dignity, the sense of three or four million, that’s less than one-half of self-worth. It doesn’t matter what other people one percent of the total population. Native think you are, it’s what you feel inside yourself. Americans are an electorally powerless group of That’s the problem. people. If we simply dump them into our big cities, we all know what happened. They will probably go Let me give you a couple of illustrations why to the bottom of the economic class and will it is not within the self interest of the person with probably remain there for the foreseeable future. power to overreach when dealing with the They should be equal citizens, they should have the powerless. When I was a young lawyer there was same opportunities to participate, but they haven’t no such thing as no-fault divorce. You had to have had. The fact of the matter is they haven’t. How in some legal grounds. Typically, you had to catch the interest of everyone, including the dominant your husband in bed with someone, not his wife. I classes, do we best insure that the Native Americans had just such a case. I jumped in with both feet. I 1) get their share and 2) carry their fair burdens in knew he was loaded with guilt, embarrassed, and in

-4- big trouble. 1 not only filed a complaint seeking wonderful thing. That asset we are perfectly happy divorce, but demanding all assets. Because of his to use in bargaining if it works in our self-interest. guilt and a less than adequate lawyer, he threw in It strengthens our bargaining hand. We ought to be the towel. We got everything - the kids, the able to see that for the same reasons that the states money, the business, the house, insurance policies, need the protection of sovereign immunity in order everything. We wanted him to grovel. Was it worth to achieve their essential tasks, the tribes need it? No, in the end it was not. There were creditors sovereign immunity in order to achieve their out there. He was so discouraged by the inequity of essential tasks. As we increase the fairness of our the judgment we obtained against him that he bargains with the tribes, 1 am confident that they simply dropped out. So who did the creditors come will increase the circumstances in which they will after? They went after my client because she got waive sovereign immunity in order to achieve the kids and the responsibility. When she got a job reasonable objectives in relationships with non-tribal to try to support them, the creditors came after her. entities. In the end she got less by a judgment which took away from her former husband all hope than if we I know that in these economic times there is a had obtained a more modest judgment to which he great temptation to look at the assets under tribal would have made some substantial contributions. control as a way to expand tax base and economic development. While that may have some short-term It is the same way with business transactions. appeal, I am firmly persuaded that it is not in our When people came to my clients aftcr I learned this long-range self interest. If we begin to take from lesson, I begged my clients not to sign overreaching the tribes that are already not self-sufficient, to business agreements. It is very hard to tell people whom do we turn to try to solve the problems of that if they take too much, in the end they take crime, drugs, and dropouts that occur in their part nothing. What you get instead of a profitable of our culture? If we continue to overburden or business transaction is lawyers and litigation, law seize their available assets, we will have to deal with suits and disaster. What a good profitable business their problems ourselves. That is the least efficient transaction depends on is good faith and the belief way to deal with those societal problems. It is the of both parties that there is something in the government and courts of the tribes themselves who transaction for them. are best informed and can most efficiently and effectively deal with the social and economic Now, that’s what we are after - a relationship problems arising within the tribal jurisdictions. We between states and the tribes which has dignity and must do whatever we can to sustain and expand something in it for both sides. After two hundred their capacity to meet those needs. In the end, in years of broken promises, of continuing conquests addition to dealing with their own problems better of Native American peoples, they still have than we can, we may be able to learn a great deal somewhat in their control four assets which are the from such concepts as extended family relationships finest assets for the foreseeable future in America. and responsibility which seem better developed Those assets are: water, minerals, land, and among Native American people than among the rest territorial control. Rather than rushing to tax and of us. destroy those assets in the hands of the Native American people, we should strengthen them so That the tribe wants to strengthen that that they can bring to the bargaining table a power integration and have the resources to develop it which enhances our relationship with each other does not suggest that they wish to withdraw from rather than causing hate and enmity. I know it is the society at all. That’s silly. It’s not true. They more common than not for us to hate and resent want to lake part, they want to be trading partners the asset of territorial control. It asserts itself in the within this United States where they are citizens and form of sovereign immunity. When sovereign they’ve had to take whatever assets were available immunity works against us, we think it a terrible to them to fight for that, and that means they need thing. On the other hand, when we the states to expand, not contract, their bargaining power. prevail because the federal courts dismiss a claim under the eleventh amendment (state sovereign The issue I want you to think about is your immunity), we think sovereign immunity is a self-interest. I don’t think anything happens without

-5- self-interest. And it’s in your self-interest to expand tribal bargaining power. You are in a dominant position, in terms of lobbying, in terms of having all of your people who are of like mind on the Supreme Court of the United States and for practical purposes all of us federal judges are of the same mind. It is a mistake to exercise that power to continue to diminish whatever hope the tribes have of being a society-wide problem solver by starting at home by exercising jurisdiction over the antisocial behavior committed by anyone within their jurisdiction. That’s what we have to do. The only act of generosity required of us is to use the power to give a generous construction of the rights we already promised and which were in our own long-range self interest. I hope this conferences will make a major step in that direction.

I won’t live long enough to see it come into clear focus, but I know from my experience thai some of you are young enough to say, ‘I was there in Seattle and I gave something of myself to this long-range, beautiful thing.’ Not unblemished, it’s still a teenager, but it’s a beautiful thing. I wish you luck and all of us luck in your deliberations.

-6- TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN INDIAN COUNTRY Monday, July I, 1991 11:OO am. - 11:30 am. 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Speaker: Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman Select Committee on Indian Affairs, U. S. Senate

It is a very special honor to be introduced by These 86 words authorize a tribal government to Billy Frank because, if my memory is correct, the elect whether or not the federal death penalty will last time he faced a group of judges, he was charged apply to crimes committed on Indian lands by with contempt of court. And, as some of you know, Indian people within their jurisdiction. That is he was one of the frontline fighters for Indian rights simply sovereignty as far as I am concerned. and because of that, this country felt that he was a danger, so he spent some time on our behalf. But As you know, the Constitution recognizes four now he’s one of our senior leaders. types of governments: the national government, state governments, tribal governments, and foreign It gives me special pleasure to be here this governments, and all are sovereign. Now these 86 morning because I think what I see here gives us words were reported out of the judiciary committee, great hope. The working together of state justices were in the 245 pages, it was part of the bill. But and tribal court justices for a common cause in a they were taken out as part of a compromise. As cooperative effort and I commend you for this you know the United States Congress oftentimes foresight and vision because I believe that this proceeds on the basis of compromise and since the approach of working together to resolve bill was not getting anywhere, a whole week of jurisdictional issues will very likely serve as a debating, nothing happening, finally the leaders got hallmark for relations among state and tribal together with those who opposed the provisions and judicial systems in the future. wanted to find out what they wanted. They wanted to take out the Indian sovereignty section. So they For the past two weeks, the United States called upon me to determine whether I would Senate has been debating the so-called Crime Bill approve of that. The alternative was to insist that and we are not yet finished. We will be returning it be placed there, force those who oppose it to take a week from today to, hopefully, resolve our small it out by vote, and possibly face a filibuster. So 1 differences, pass the bill, and pass it on to the thought the time had come for the United States President. It is a very bulky bill. It has 245 pagcs, Senate to fish or cut bait, and that’s what I told my and it covers a wide range of issues’rclated to colleagues. 1 felt it should come on its own before violent crime, speaks of safer streets, safer the body, standing alone, not hidden among the 245 neighborhoods, terrorism. The bill includes pages with hundreds of provisions, because it’s time provisions to expand the number of crimes in which for the Senate to have an up or down vote on this the death penalty will attach, speaks of uzis and real issue. The issue of sovereignty. assault weapons. It’s a very interesting bill. But buried in all of these hundreds of pages is one We have never had a clear vote in the last ten section of 86 words, a very important 86 words years, I believe, and this was a very clear one. because these are important to tribal governments. Everyone knew where it stood. The ranking They go to the very foundation of the status of member of the committee, the Republican ranking sovereignty within ‘our constitutional system. These member, the senior senator from South Carolina, 86 words clearly will accord to tribal governments a proposed an amendment. I had introduced the 86 status which state governments have come to take words as an amendment to the new bill, he offered for granted, the right to develop and shape the laws a so-called second degree amendment, it was a very that will apply within the scope of their jurisdiction. clever amendment and at first blush one would say

-7- it is a very fair amendment, because it said for those discussions of the governmental status of tribal tribes that have reservations in states that have nations in the debates of the Continental Congress. capital punishment, they will have no choice, capital It is a matter that has withstood the test of time. punishment will be the law of the tribal government. As I indicated, our founding fathers in all of their For those reservations located in the 14 states that discussions and in the Constitution itself refer to have no capital punishment, then they will have the four types of governments and it is very clear that right to exercise their sovereignty and select whether tribal governments are one of them. And it is upon they will have capital punishment or not. In other this structure that the governmental status of Indian words, in 36 states there is no sovereignty and in 14 nations was built and it has been reaffirmed by states you have sovereignty, they could exercise rulings of the Supreme Court, it has been sovereignty in Hawaii because Hawaii is one of the underscored by acts of the Congress, and all of 14 states, but you have no reservations there. Then these are laws of our nation, and these have you will come up with some strange arrangement occurred over 200 years. I also reminded my like Standing Rock Reservation and the Sioux. colleagues that every president since the time of North Dakota has no capital punishment, South George Washington has reaffirmed this and Dakota has capital punishment - The Standing recently, on June 14th of this year, President Bush Rock Sioux are in both states. So, one had better issued a statement reaffirming government-to- move up to North Dakota. government relationships between the United States and tribal governments and he recognized the Ordinarily, our debates are limited to about 40 sovereign status of Indian nations. minutes, equally divided, 20 minutes on each side, but the leadership recognized that this was a matter And so, on the 25th of June, eleven days later, of great import and significance, and so we debated while discussing the President’s recent statement these 86 words for over two hours and every and as we concluded our debare, a vote was taken. conceivable argument was brought up against it. There were many who felt the Indians would lose as Some said that Indians were just another special they have over the years and over the decades, but interest group. That’s what some of our senators 1 am pleased to tell you that by a vote of 65 to 29, believe, that Indians are special interest groups and that is decisive, 65 to 29, the Senate said across this if we open the door to let Indians have this election, nation and to governments around the world that then every other special interest group will be lndian tribal governments are sovereign. I thought coming forward. Well, I told them that if a special it was time that we in the United States Senate interest group has a constitutional provision, so be discussed the works of our predecessors in that it. Some said that Indians, like Blacks and Asians august body as some of you are aware. Throughout and Hispanics, are Americans and that all the history of our country, our presidents signed 800 Americans should be treated equally. It was a treaties as the chief representative of the United glorious debate, equal treatment of all Americans States, 800 treaties with tribal governments, and of and they suggested that to single out the Indians these 800 treaties the Senate of the United States, would be singling out one racial group in violation my predecessors, either refused to even consider of the Constitution. I cite these examples just to these treaties or just refused to ratify them. Four give you an idea of the fundamental hundred and thirty of them are still in our files, set misunderstanding that you will find on the status of aside. Yes, we ratified 370 of them, but one thing tribal governments within the constitutional about us, we are consistent, because we proceeded framework. to violate provisions in every single one of them.

As I pointed out to my colleagues in the This is a country that takes extreme pride in debate, the governmental status of Indian nations is words such as commitment. The President of the not a concept of modern times. It is not something United States uses that word at least once a week in that we dreamed up in this century. It is not a referring to treaties. It is a commitment. But in status that was recently accorded to Indian nations the case of Indians, there has been no commitment. by rulings of the Supreme Court or laws enacted by Two hundred years ago, eminent anthropologists the Congress, but this status is found in the have suggested to us, there were at least ten million Constitution of the United States and we find Indians residing in the United States. Many others

-8- suggest that there must have been over 50,000,000 resources or training or case management or Indians residing in these United States. And these libraries such as you find in the federal and state same anthropologists tell us that at the end of the courts. So, 1 will tell you that this committee will Indian wars there remained on this land about continue its work to establish these support systems 250,OOO. Something happened along the way to the of the tribal courts. We are prepared to do so at Indian wars. The hundreds of trails of tears, for this conference and we think with the tremendous one thing. vote of June Zth, the momentum is there. And Indians gave up over 500 million acres of land you can be assured that the Select Committee on for those 800 treaties. However, as a result of these Indian Affairs will continue to uphold and reaffirm treaties, the government of the United States the jurisdiction of tribal courts. And so, as I said in recognized the sovereignty of the Indian nations in the opening, it pleases me greatly to see all of you 550 million acres of land. That was the way it was here and to your desire to be partners in these 200 years ago. And I would commend to you the efforts. And so, on behalf of the Select Committee reading of some of these treaties because they are on Indian Affairs and members of the United States sheer poetry, “as long as the sun rises in the east Senate, I welcome your recognition of the and sets in the west and the waters flow from the sovereignty of Indian tribal governments. mountains to the rivers, this will be your land ...” Five hundred and fifty million acres of land. Well, today there are less than 50 million acres of land. Something happened to 500 million acres of land along the way.

So, I believe that what took place in the Senate on June 25,1991, is long overduc, and that it is time for the United States to live up to its commitment and reaffirm the sovereignty of Indian tribal nations. For June 25th may be the day we call the Day of the 86 Words, but it will be an important time, I think, in the history of U. S. and Indian relationships. And today you meet in recognition of that sovereign status, because if that status were not recognized, I doubt if this meeting would have been held. And those of you who are gathered here honor the sovereignty of your governments, the sovereignty of your state governments, the sovereignty of your tribal governments, and you honor the judicial systems that are part of those governments.

In our committee’s work on legislation to support and enhance tribal courts, we have studied the institutions and agencies that provide support for the state court systems, such as the National Center for State Courts and the Institute for Court Management. We have also looked at those systems that support the federal courts. And our study also shows that compared to state and federal courts, tribal courts have nothing. There is nothing comparable, nothing comparable available to tribal courts in our country. They do not enjoy the resources in terms of financial support or personnel

-9- FACING THE FUTURE: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS Tuesday, July 2, 1991 3:15 p.m. - 4:OO p.m. 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Speaker: Hon. William A. Thorne, Judge Third Circuit Court, Utah

Let me give you just a very little bit of have an Indian law question that comes up, a background so you understand the perspective I am juvenile judge from the northern part of the state using in terms of trying to see where we are going. will call and say "This lawyer has just told me about I was a product of one of the programs that the Indian Child Welfare Act, is there such a thing, Professor Johnson talked about, the Indian law do I have to follow it?" Another colleague from the summer session. I went through that program and eastern part of the state will call and say "This then into law school. Before starting that program person in front of me claims they are an Indian and I had never met a lawyer or judge other than I don't have any jurisdiction over them, is he right?'' watching Perry Mason on t.v. I had truly never met Those are questions that four and a half years ago anybody 1 could identify as a lawyer or judge. And they would not have called and asked me about, I went to law school with the idea that I liked to becausc 1 was an outsider. argue and 1 was going to try to make thc system live up to its word; that was the goal. And so, even What 1 hope that this conference will do is after law school, I held judges in a good deal of start to break down that wall that separates insiders awe. 1 always assumed, contrary to what some and outsiders in terms of tribal judges and state people have said, that when a judge decided against court judges. I hope we will start to view each me and I didn't understand, that the judge must other as colleagues, all pointed in the same have known something that 1 didn't know, rather direction. When a question comes up, as Judge than assuming that the judge was wrong. Claborne has indicated to me, we all ought to be able to pick up the phone, call our colleague, and But now I am a judge and I see that there are say, "Here is the problem I've got, is there a simple real people behinds those black robes and not some way we can solve this, or should we let the lawyers mythical, inspired bcing that knows everything and to solve it?" That's going to save us a lot of time, knows the way things should be. That awe still and 1 don't know anybody who has the luxury of a persists to such a point that when I play on a small docket. It's going to save the parties a lot of judges' softball team I have the hardest time, after money. And, most of all, hopefully, it will result in four and a half years as a state judge, calling some quicker and surer justice, That, 1 see, is the of those people by their first name. It somehow landmark from this kind of conference. doesn't seem appropriate to say "Way to go, Judge." I still have a great deal of difficulty calling my Ten years ago, when I was serving on a tribal colleagues now, whom I have appeared in front of, bench, 1 would have bet big money that a by their first name. But one thing 1 have discovered conference likc this never would have happened. is that views change depending on whether you are For those people who know me, I part with my an insider or an outsider. money very reluctantly, but I would have been willing to bet a lot of money that state judges and Even sitting as a judge in the tribal courts, I tribal judges would not have been able to sit down viewed the state courts from the position of an and try to reach, if not an accommodation, at least outsider. I think that was also how I was viewed by an understanding of each other's point of view, and a lot of the state court people. But what has I'm quite frankly amazed that the Conference of happened in the last four and a half years is that I Chief Justices three years ago undertook this am no longer an outsider, but an ally, a colleague. project. And I hope that those of you out there I am now getting phone calls from colleagues who share with me an appreciation for those people who

-10- undertook this project. Justice Erickstad is, as I other, but strong partners pulling in the same understood, the gadfly at the Conference of Chief direction, can help to identify new ways to solve Justices, who would not let the subject drop, who problems. kept suggesting that there was a better way to do things. It strikes me as a little odd that people have perceived tribal courts and tribal organizations as The people of the Coordinating Council spent somewhat backward when 300 years later Anglo a lot of time over a lot of years figuring out what courts have now come into the idea that restitution some of the problems were. They then sought and concern for victims is a priority. That was a solutions and put them in place, giving them a priority for tribal courts hundreds of years ago, for chance to see if they would work or not. Then they tribal justice organizations, not necessarily tribal worked hard to set up this conference. I hope that courts. Those are the kinds of concepts that we can we will be able to follow up on what Chief Justice share back and forth, that can strengthen our own Tso said on the first day, when he talked about the partners, and this idea of searching for justice for all last 500 years of Indian and non-Indian contact our people. being one of conflict and his vision, or his hope, that the next 500 years would be one of As Judge Claborne said, and I spent some time cooperation. This kind of conference can be the talking with him on the phone in the course of start of that. doing the evaluation and here today, he told me he genuinely had fun doing the project. I think that's Next year, 1992, will be 500 years of contact, 1 got to be a key for making this work. If it's a pain, hope that we can work together over the next nobody readily subjects themselves to pain period of years to create a time of cooperation and voluntarily over and over again, unless there is the way to do that, I think Judge McKay hit right on something wrong with you. But he told me that he the head, is patient investment of capital. Capital enjoyed the process of sharing and learning about consisting not just of money, but of good will, the organizations. It was his suggestion to me that understanding, an enlightened self-interest. the key element was another "C," and I would Patience in the knowledge that tribal courts are still suggest that maybe we add this to the other Cs evolving. If you look back on the history of courts we've talked about. And that is Common Sense. in this country, the first 20 to 30 years were not When there is a problem, there doesn't always have uneventful. Remember Marbiiry v. Mudisoit, when to be a complicated solution. A suggestion that he very basic constitutional issues had to be resolved said he utilized when he was on the trial bench was about the role of courts. Tribal courts and tribal to pick up the phone and call. As Judge Jenkins governments are undergoing that same process. said, if you get a number that's not working, try a Utilizing what has happened in United States courts different number. Call and talk to the person on the same way that the early Supreme Court utilized the other side. The familiarity that comes from decisions from England, not as binding precedent, dealing with your colleagues on a parallel system, I but as a source of wisdom that could be followed think, is invaluable. and maybe even improved upon. I see tribal courts as trying to take those kinds of steps. But there is a word of caution that I would urge on all of you, that is the old notion that Cooperation is an investment that will pay big familiarity breeds contempt. 1 think it can either dividends in terms of a partnership. Partnership: breed contempt in this case, or it can breed trust. the stronger your partner is, the better off your And what happens in the next 500 years will depend entire enterprise is. When one partner dominates on what we take from this conference. We can sit and one is subordinate, you don't really have the down and agree to disagree as professionals that strength of two or more people - you have one eventually will lead to trust, where you can pick up leader and one follower. A successful partnership the phone and call a colleague in a parallel system of tribal and state courts, where each is strong and and say "Judge, I have a case in front of me now can help the other, where one is not a leader and and 1 understand it was filed in front of you a one a follower, where one is not subordinate to the couple of days ago, how about that we work this out so that you decide the case, keep me informed of

-11- what is going on and give me a chance to talk to just a matter of coordinating the effort and making you before you have your mind made up. But I'll sure that people don't fall between the cracks. And go with whatever you decide is best." We've done as you do that, you will build the trust that is that at tribal court levels. I would pick up the necessary to then tackle the problems, the phone where we had a child custody case, parental disagreements. When you are used to sitting down kidnapping and running to some place else in the and working with somebody, it's a whole lot easier country. The father had picked up the child for when you get mad at them to later say "We'll put visitation and refused to return the child; he filed a that aside, let's go on to something else productive." protective action in a tribal court in Utah. The But if your only experience of working with mother then went to her reservation in North somebody is a disagreement, it's tough to go beyond Dakota and filed a kidnapping charge. I picked up that. the phone and called the judge up there and said "Judge, what if I let you decide it, I know you are a Like Mr. Decker's story this morning about the fair person, just keep me involved, let me give you bridge of stones, and that "we should have told him my two cents worth and I'll stick with whatever where the rocks were." In that story there are a decision you want. Whatever decision you make." priest and the medicine man. I think that's probably an appropriate analogy of tribal and state We've had the same kind of relationship with courts. The goal is the same, to have people live a tribal and state people in the Uintah Basin. good life. You may get there on different paths, Somebody would appear in tribal court and say but your goal is the same and we ought to be able "Judge, I'm not an Indian, you can't process me." to respect the professionalism in each other and the That despite the fact that they had been processed fact that we are decent people working towards the regularly in that court for years and years, the same end. Maybe by a slightly different path, but community considered them to be an Indian. But going to the same place. they obviously had read some law or newspaper article and knew that the tribal courts could not The role of courts is to provide justice and handle non-Indians. So, he told me that he was a fairness to all the people in the country, regardless non-Indian. Rather than decide that we had a of whether they are on or off the reservation. crisis, I said, "That was fine" and we'd put him When we can do that, tribal and state judges can under oath. I would call the County Attorney who derive some mutual support from each other. Let regularly practiced as a civil lawyer in tribal court me give you an example from the Umatilla and arrange to have the tribal police take him down reservation in Oregon. Pendleton is a middle-sized to the jail. He'd file the charges and prosecute in town near the reservation or within the reservation, state court. That's fine, it doesn't make any I'm not exactly sure, but the state justice of the difference to me, as long as the problem gets peace there, when he goes on training or vacation solved. It's those kinds of solutions that I think will or is ill, he appoints the tribal judge to fill in for help; that will come out of a conference like this, him. They support each other mutually. It doesn't where you can pick up the phone, make those calls, have to be grinding down the edges for an identical and recognize that hopefully we're all pulling in the match, but mutual support. So I think cooperation, same direction. communication and common sense can get us where we need to go and I think the enlightened self- I would urge you that when you sit down for interest of all tribal courts and state courts and the first time to work with state or tribal colleagues enlightened self-interest, as Judge McKay talked that you not look to solve problems. There are about on the first day, will tell us where we need to more than enough of those to go around. But find go with each other. We all have crowded caseflow areas of shared concern that you can work together, dockets and none of us has a corner on wisdom or you can readily agree that there is something we a solution that will work, but if we are all pulling in can do as a whole rather than two parts and have the same direction, I think we can get there. the result turn out better. For example, dealing with drunk drivers, beginning with domestic violence And I hope that this conference is, in the and honoring restraining orders. Something where words of Chief Justice Tso, a beginning of that new everybody agrees what the solution should be and is 500 years of cooperation instead of conflict.

-12- EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP Monday, July I, 1991 9:45 am. - 11:OO am. 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Moderator: Hon. Bruce Jenkins, Chief Judge U. S. District Court, Utah

Speakers: Hon. Tom Tso, Chief Justice Navajo Nation Judiciary, Arizona

Hon. Ralph J. Erickstad, Chief Justice Supreme Court, North Dakota

Hon. Roger Wollman, Judge U. S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, South Dakota

Session moderator Judge Bruce Jenkins began Various constraints that define or articulate the by noting that, although we may have common parameters of a court system’s jurisdiction. Some experiences, we look at life through ”different constraints limit the powers of the court; other lenses.” In order to examine jurisdictional issues constraints are tools which assist in determining through a few of these lenses, the purpose of this jurisdiction. Constraints are both external and session was to present three jurists’ perspectives on internal. Limitations on the civil jurisdiction of the status of tribal-state-federal court relations, in tribal courts also operate to define the jurisdiction order to spark further discussions of future of other courts. These constraints include treaties, directions for these relations. Hence, this session comity, concurrent jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction, involved presentations by a tribal and state chief federal laws/decisions, and tribal laws. justice and a federal judge on Indian, state, and federal system views of jurisdictional issues, Chief Justice Tso stated that it is difficult to including typical roles, concerns, and constraints. separate issues of tribal jurisdiction from those of tribal sovereignty and concurrent concerns of Tribal Perspecfiw. Chief Justice Tso named territory, but he maintained that, once these issues two basic functions/purposes of courts to begin his are resolved and the premise of sovereignty presentation: 1) to hear and decide cases justly, accepted, others are more likely to fall into place. promptly, and economically; and 2) to maintain themselves as independent and respected To lessen jurisdictional conflicts and mistrust, institutions. Because of these goals, courts have a Chief Justice Tso urged that tribal courts expand stake in jurisdictional issues since the outcome of a education and information efforts with the public, jurisdictional decision may well impact the extent to and the non-Indian bench and non-Indian bar. “If which the courts hear/decide future cases. By the we’rc to invite people to our home, we have to tell same token, jurisdictional conflicts may harm the them how to get there.” Misinformation leads to a courts’ appearance of independence and ability to confusion of jurisdictional issues and a command respect, either through public misperceplion that non-Indian interests will not be misperceptions or misunderstanding of such protected in tribal court proceedings. disputes, or through unwarranted delay of case resolution.

-13- Chief Justice Tso named some common comity to a tribal court decision. Although this misperceptions which plague - and tend to represents an important step toward improved constrain - tribal courts. One that is used to government-to-government status between tribes discredit the tribal court system is that Indian and states, Chief Justice Erickstad noted that many culture is solely oral, thus producing the perception unclear jurisdictional issues still remain, and cited that its concept of justice is undeveloped. Chief cases within the area of drunk-driving as examples Justice Tso disavowed this myth by explaining the of this. To address this particular issue and those basic tenets underlying the Indian system of justice, of traffic-safety reporting and enforcement, as well including principles of restitution, standing by one's as other issues in Indian country that are of commitments, and the involvement of all affected common concern, the North Dakota Judicial parties in the justice process. Chief Justice Tso also System, the state's department of transportation, spoke of the similarity of tradition and custom in North Dakota tribes, tribal courts and regional both Indian and non-Indian systems - and how officials will gather in October for a multi-state justice systems develop as reflections of the conference. This conference will likely make major people/society they serve. strides toward forging new understandings and cooperative solutions. Important contributions of the Indian system to that of the dominant society are many, including an Chief Justice Erickstad concluded his emphasis on problem-solving as opposed to presentation by urging continuation of joint efforts retribution and the exploration of underlying toward strengthening the tribal-state court problems/background. relationship and toward finding and implementing solutions to disputes. As tribal courts may have to cross jurisdictional boundaries to resolve issues, it is A Fedeml Oneitratioit. Judge Roger Wollman essential that other jurisdictions have faith in tribal began his remarks by stating that his views, though courts. Chief Justice Tso stressed the need for not intended to formally represent those of the tribal courts to aggressively inform the legal federal bench, are grounded in the gratifying community as to their decisions, in order to do away learning experience he has enjoyed on both the with misperceptions and build trust and faith in South Dakota Supreme Court and United States their judgment and decisions. He maintained that Court of Appeals benches. tribal courts must also be willing to contribute to legal thought and solutions to mutual problems, and Judge Wollman briefly reviewed the United to participate in the larger legal community toward States Supreme Court's "case trilogy," which has the ultimate goal of "justice." important impact upon court jurisdictions. In sum, the Murlitiez decision states that federal courts have State's View. The next speaker, Chief Justice no jurisdiction in actions brought against tribal Erickstad, began with a summary of the project's courts/tribal officials; the Farnrers Uttiott case background, and the acknowledgement that has demands that non-Indian litigants submit to a tribal developed of the critical nature of tribal-state court court determination of its own jurisdiction in the relations. He spoke of his earlier conviction that first instance before taking this matter to a federal solutions to disputed issues of civil jurisdiction court; and Iowa Mirhial, which dctcrmines that a would most likely be developed through federal federal court should hold back in a diversity legislation, or by joint efforts of federal judges and jurisdiction case and permit a tribal court to state supreme court justices. He amended this determine its own jurisdiction over parallel tribal earlier position, however, by noting that change is court proceedings against a non-Indian dependent. more likely to occur through joint efforts of Judge Wollman noted that, through those decisions, tribes/tribal courts and state governments/state the United States Supreme Court recognized (and courts. expects lower federal courts and state courts to do the same) that tribal courts are competent, In 1990, for the first time in more than 100 organized, and independent forums for dispute years, the North Dakota Supreme Court granted resolution. These courts embody tribal sovereignty

- 14- and play an important role in tribal self-government confer jurisdiction upon themselves, they can confer and self-determination. it upon others, by granting comity to decisions - recognizing the validity of other sovereign courts’ Judge Wollman also spoke of the need to decrces and orders. He noted the “less than recognize that tribal courts reflect tradition and seamless web” of United States Supreme Court tribal common law of a culture that may differ in a decisions issued on matters of Indian law, and number of respects from the common law values recommended an article on the subject written by reflected in the larger non-Indian culture of the Professor Phillip Frickey, of the University of United States. He noted that non-tribal officials Minnesota School of Law entitled, Congressional might do well to learn from tribal courts such Iiiterrl, Praclical Reasoiiing, arid (lie Dynaniic Nature concepts as communication, cooperation, sharing, of Federal Indian Law. Judge Wollman’s advice to respect for elders, and tradition - all of which are court officials in trying to follow this less-than- emphasized within Indian culture. Recognizing the consistent stream of decisions is to follow the path unique aspects tribal culture/ courts can bring to defined by the United States Supreme Court - and the dominant non-Indian culture can do much to to try to direct the path in areas which are not well- further respect and cooperation between the two defined toward tribal court sovereignty and groups. The need for legislatures to grant full faith jurisdiction. and credit to tribal judgments and decrees is also essential, maintained Judge Wollman. Jurisdiction is power, concluded Judge Wollman. He acknowledged that once possessed With recognition, however, comes a price to and excrcised, power is difficult to share; thus, he tribal courts. Crediting Indian law scholar Frank advocated resolving disputes outside the realm of Pommersheim with this observation, Judge Wollman litigation, as this power can then be more equally noted that increased recognition of tribal courls divided. leads to increased federal scrutiny and, therefore, heightened criticism of tribal court decisions. What follows then, he asserted, is an imposition of constitutional and common law forms of process and adjudication. This, however, tends to fly in the face of a national policy supporting the growth and development of tribal courts, leading one to ask, “What actually constitutes ‘growth’ and ‘development’?” Judge Wollman posed two possible definitions: 1) mimicry of state/federal courts, or, conversely, 2) a commitment to autonomy for tribes and courts to meet the needs of local people, allowing for some divergence from the dominant canon of the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition.

Judge Wollman continued in this vein by posing some important questions regarding increased scrutiny of tribal court decisions, namely, whether these decisions should be evaluated from the perspective of thc dominant cultural system of common law, or rather from the point of view of those who developed the Indian system. And, in the latter case, will separate systems of evaluation lead to a fragmented, atomistic judiciary?

Judge Wollman began to wrap-up his presentation by asserting that jurisdiction is an aspect of sovereignty. Although courts cannot

-15- DEFINING THE ISSUES Monday, July I, 1991 11:30 am. - 12:OO Noon 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Moderator: Jay White, Attorney-at-Law, Washington

Speaker: Professor Ralph E. Johnson University of Washington Law School

In order to lay a historical foundation for represented in court was to ask the B.I.A. or U.S. tribal-state court relations, the intent of this session Attorneys Office to represent them - sometimes was to provide participants with an overview of the representation was granted, sometimes not. origin and development of tribal courts, including the nature of jurisdictional conflicts and descriptions The passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of various intergovernmental agreements. (ICRA) in 1968 gave constitutional protection to Indians and others appearing before tribal courts. Following an introduction by his former law This signaled the application of the Bill of Rights to student, Jay White, Professor Johnson opened the Native Americans, but also triggered an expanded session by noting both short-term and long-term need for tribal funding for training and histories of tribal court development. enhancement of the tribal court system. Thus, in 1971, the Native American Indian Court Judges Professor Johnson stressed the significance of Association was founded, and instituted essential the five year period from 1965-1970 as particularly training programs for tribal judges. important in setting the tone for the enhancement of tribal courts and understanding their inherent As a result of this "recent history" of tribal problems. court development/enhancement, maintained Professor Johnson, tribal courts are rapidly In 1968, the Native American Rights becoming an integral part of the judiciary in the Foundation (NARF) was created. The founding of United States. Several hundred thousand civil cases this organization, which serves as a center for legal as well as large numbers of criminal cases decided research and advocacy for tribes nationwide, was annually by tribal courts most are generally integral for setting a tone of tribal court accorded comity or full faith and credit by federal competency. and state courts. Tribal courts exercise substantial criminal jurisdiction over Indians, and civil Also in 1968, the University of New Mexico jurisdiction over both Indians and non-Indians. initiated a six-week summer program for would-be Most methods of dispute resolution employed by law students of Indian descent. The program, tribal courts are "recognizable" and similar to funded by the B.I.A., served to give these students federal/state court use. Approximately 130 tribal a head start on their law school training. Prior to courts and 17 CFR (B.I.A.) courts exist within the the program's establishment, there may have been U.S. today, with 250 Indian court judges conducting only about 10-15 Indian attorneys in the U.S.; now, those courts' proceedings. A growing number of approximately 25-30 Indian students enroll in law state courts provide full faith and credit or comity to schools annually. tribal court judgments.

In 1966, Congress passed a law declaring that The achievement of the present level of tribal if an Indian tribe asked the federal government for court functioning - even with its shortcomings - representation and was refused, the tribe could go was no easy task. According to Professor Johnson, out and hire an attorney on its own. Prior to it is remarkable that Indian tribal passage of this law, the only way a tribe could be governments/tribal courts are now a permanent

-16- part of the nation's legal landscape, given past U.S. religious zeal, capitalism, and greed for Indian policies of removal and assimilation of tribal lands. Reservation land not "needed for allotment peoples. was then opened to white settlers. By 1934, Indians had lost two-thirds of their land - from 148 million Professor Johnson outlined several primary acres in 1887, to 48 million acres in 1934. Also "eras" of national Indian policy setting. The first of during this period special boarding schools were these was the Treaty Era (1789-1815), during which established to remove Indian children from their assimilation of Indians into Anglo culture was the families, Indian religions, and cultures. primary goal espoused by U.S. Government officials such as Thomas Jefferson. The B.I.A. court system (started in 1883) was initially established to: 1) get the military off the Next came the Removal Era (1815-1845), when reservations; 2) create a law and order system; the five civilized tribes and many others were 3) reduce the authority of traditional chiefs. These removed west of the Mississippi River to land courts were relatively effective at keeping order on promised to them for as long as the rivers run. reservations. They also served to replace the "Words are wonderful," remarked Professor military and reservation agents as dispensers of Johnson, "they sound like forever." justice. These courts did not accomplish assimilation although one of their primary missions These words did not stand the test of time, was to suppress Indian customs and traditions. however, as national policy then moved into a period called the Resentatiori Era (1845-1887). The Itidiari Reorganization Act of 1934 served During this time, Indians were moved onto to rcversc the earlier allotment policy, reservations by the U.S. Government, in order to acknowledging its failure. This new Act thus free up the land (and resources such as gold within initiated the first self-determination era, by freezing it) desired by thousands of settlers flocking to the all allotments, authorizing federally-approved west during the period. This also saw the constitutions and federally-chartered tribal enactment of 77ie Major Crimes Acf (18 USC 1153) corporations, and encouraging/funding tribal courts. (1885), which made it a federal crime for an Indian These courts were modeled closely after the BJA. to commit one of 14 major crimes against either an courts, but were based on inherent sovereignty. By Indian or a non-Indian in Indian country. Until this time most tribes were more familiar with the 1885, even federal criminal laws did not apply to Anglo court system than with their traditional Indians committing crimes in Indian country. justice systems. Over time, many B.I.A. courts were Lesser crimes were then left to tribal justice replaced by tribal courts. systems. Until the late 18OOs, Indian reservations were controlled under the auspiccs of the military; From 1950-1960, yet another policy era was the B.I.A. was under the War Department until ushered in, termed the Teniiitiatiori Era. During 1849. In 1883, the B.I.A. instituted Courts of Indian this time, national policy swung again toward Offenses (B.I.A. courts), run by a B.I.A. "agent" for termination of Indian tribes as federally-recognized each reservation. The criminal code and procedures self-governing entities. Although some were later were established by the B.I.A., and judges were reestablished, 109 tribes were terminated during this hired, fired, and paid by the B.I.A. The reservation time. This era also saw the enactment of Public agent was thus the judge, jury, and jailor until the Law 280 (1953), which authorized states to impose passage of Tlie Major Crinies Acl. state civil and criminal jurisdiction over reservations, either with or without tribal consent. Because of The next policy period is termed Assitiiilatiori the widespread opinion that Indian tribes were Era, which began in 1887 with the passage of the being terminatcd during this time, tribal courts were Dawes or General Allotment Act, which was not active, were not encouraged, and were not designed to break up reservations and Indians' funded. communal lifestyle by allotting tracts of reservation land to individual Indians. Motivating factors The period from 1960-Present, as outlined by behind this Act are believed to have included Professor Johnson at the beginning of his

-17- presentation, characterizes another policy swing to an era of tribal self-determination. This era, which has strong support among Indians, encompasses several actions taken to support self-determination. These include the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (25 USCA §§ 450a-450n), the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (125 USCA §§ 1901-1963), and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (25 USCA §§ 1901-1963). Also, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 was enacted to help ensure tribal courts and governments safeguarded the civil rights of parties to court actions and person impacted by executive and legislative branch functions. This era also has seen the return of mis- surveyed lands to tribes, as well as the reestablishment of many tribes and the creation/recognition of approximately 15 new tribes. Tribal courts have now expanded their work into civil issues, and tribal judges are given substantial training opportunities, thanks to the recent creation of various training organizarions developed specifically for their needs.

-18- CONFLICTS IN CONTEXT IDENTIFYING JURISDICTIONAL CONCERNS Tuesday, July 2, 1991 8:30 am. - 1O:OO am. 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Moderator: Hon. James G. Exum, Jr. Chief Justice, North Carolina

Speakers: Craig Dorsay, Legal Services Attorney, Oregon Jeanne Whiteing (Blackfeet), Attorney-at-Law, Colorado Michael Taylor, Attorney, Colville Tribe, Washington Daniel Decker (Flathead), Attorney, Flathead Tribe, Montana

The purpose of this session was to explore great deal of discussion on this and related issues at various jurisdictional concerns arising between tribal the national conference. He noted that this issue is and state courts by viewing the disputes in the particularly salient to the recognition of tribal context of four topical areas. These included: sovereignty, in that with such recognition needs to Domestic Relations/Indian Child Welfare Act; come a like respect for tribal custom and tradition, Natural Resources/Hunting and Fishing/ Water such as those integral to child-rearing. Mr. Dorsay Rights; Economic Development/ Gaming/Taxation; stressed a need to "look ahead" and to strive to and Zoning/ Environmental Concerns. Tribal-state resolve jurisdictional issues, as cooperatively as communication and cooperation is essential in these possible - as Indian childrens' lives and futures are (and other) areas; this session focused on ways in in question. which the two groups can coordinate efforts in response to unclear jurisdictional boundaries In outlining some of his professional history in pertaining to these issues. dealing with this issue, Mr. Dorsay noted that he was hired by the Navajo Nation in 1982 to handle Chief Justice James G. Exum, Jr. (North the tribe's ICWA caseload. Over the past seven Carolina) opened the session by reviewing the years, Mr. Dorsay has handled approximately 1,OOO session's purpose and the importance of the three ICWA cases in 24 state courts, and has witnessed "C"s --Communication, Cooperation, and Comity. the various ways state courts handle these issues. He also proffered a fourth, though an "H" - He noted that the primary downfall of state courts Humility. The Chief Justice urged participants to is their failure to systematize, or regularize, the maintain a humble perspective in dealing with these process of resolving Domestic Relations/ICWA difficult issues, acknowledging that no one jurisdictional disputes. person/group has all the answers nor a monopoly on the "truth." For communication, he also stressed Cases decided in this area are "all over the the importance of both its aspects: willingness to map," according to Mr. Dorsay. As there exist no listert as well as to speak. precedents, standards, or rules, judges have great difficulty in knowing how to decide these cases. Domestic Relations/Iitdiaii Child Welfare Act. Craig Add to this the fact that this area involves very Dorsay began the panel's presentations by noting emotionally-charged issues that contribute to the the precipitating effect that his topic - Domestic judges' difficulty. What Mr. Dorsay has found Relations and the Indian Child Welfare Act through his many dealings with various courts on (ICWA) - has had on tribal-state court relations. this issue is that it is typical for a (non-Indian) That is, although the ICWA has prompted "painful judge to decide in favor of a member of the local deliberations" and issues for state courts, it has also community, as that person is "known" to the court, effectively - though unanticipated - facilitated a with more familiar customs and traditions. Further,

-19- when matters go against a client, the typical non- unquantified. These rights are for the most part Indian attorney will attack the only issue which may "senior" to others, as determined by the early 1900's be "available" - the sovereignty and jurisdiction of case Wirtfersv. United States, which states that when the tribal court, or even the credentials of the an area is set aside for a tribe as a reservation, area Indian attorney for the other party. Mr. Dorsay water rights are set aside as well to fulfill the needs stated that often times complaints of "unauthorized of the reservation. The date of the right is the date practice of law" are filed against this attorney to that the reservation was established; thus typically slow the process. there is "senior" status of these rights.

Issues influencing a child's welfare also add to Two primary questions arise in the area of the difficult decision-making process, including water rights, according to Ms. Whiteing: 1) What child-parent bonding, respect for/attention to a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate or quantify water child's ethnicity, contact with biological parents, rights; and 2) who has jurisdiction to administer psychological effects, etc. water rights once adjudicated? The first question was resolved through a number of United States Mr. Dorsay noted that, although the ICWA Supreme Court decisions and federal legislation, was intended to give tribes many rights with regard beginning with the McCarran Amendment passed to their children, it also gives more responsibility to by Congress in 1952. This amendment states that tribes to participate in state court child custody the federal government waives sovereign immunity proceedings - without concurrent allocation of to be sued in state courts for the purpose of funding to carry out these responsibilities, including adjudicating federal water rights. The issue of provision of social services workers' testimony. whether this included Indian water rights was clarified in a 1976 United States Supreme Court In cases involving a Navajo child, for example, dccision, stating that water rights were included. Mr. Dorsay noted that prior to ICWA it was the Howcver, concurrent jurisdiction between the tribe's policy to intervene only when a case had federal and state courts remained an issue, in terms gotten "out of hand." Now, however, he has of which forum was most appropriate for stressed to them that it is important for the tribe to adjudicating tribal water rights. In a 1983 United appear in every case, in order to impress state States Supreme Court decision in the Sun Carlos judiciaries with their presence. At first, the reaction Apache Tribe v. Anzoria case, state courts were to this exposure was one of shock and panic -that designated as the preferred forum for resolving the tribe wanted all their children back suddenly. these disputes. This, therefore, made it difficult for Now, however, the tactic has gained credibility, and Indian water rights cases to proceed in federal cases are more often handled (on the tribe's side) courts. by social service workers as opposed to attorneys. As for the second question regarding the Mr. Dorsay concluded his presentation by administration of adjudicated water rights, the law urging tribal courts to take responsibility for is still not well-developed. Tribes have regulatory demonstrating/proving the fairness of their jurisdiction over Indian rights on reservations, but proceedings, as a precursor to state courts granting who administers non-Indian water rights on a their decisions comity. Ultimately, Mr. Dorsay reservation and which court enforces administration maintained, we need to move toward procedures decisions made are questions that still remain. that presume tribal court fairness if a truly cooperative tribal-state court relationship is to exist. There have been at least five settlements related to Indian water rights that have been Water/Natural Resources/Hiintitrg atrd Fislring approved by tribal and state governments since Rights. Beginning with a discussion of jurisdictional 1983. These agreements have been approved or are issues arising in the area of water rights, panelist pending approval by Congress. Jeanne Whiteing noted that many tribes (especially within the Western United States) possess According to Ms. Whiteing, a number of substantial water rights which remain largely factors have influenced the recent upsurge of

-20- Indian water rights settlements. From a tribal 4. Federal funds allocated through negotiation to perspective, these include the following: allow for water use by tribes also serve as a source of protection for non-Indian water From 1974-1983, nearly every western state rights, as more water is made available. initiated general stream adjudications. When state courts were designated the "preferred 5. Settlements allow for "win-win" situations, forum" for adjudicating these matters in 1983, wherein Indians and non-Indians are both tribes faced the prospect of having their protected. property rights determined in state courts for the first time (formerly, Indian property rights Litigation, of course, is very costly to the tribes were decided in federal courts). To avoid this, as well. Tribes often see settlements negotiated negotiated settlements outside the court arena with states as preferable to taking their chances in became the best option. a state court system.

Tribes came to realize that, on paper alone, In the area of hunting and fishing rights, Ms. water rights were not beneficial; the tribes Whiteing outlined several issues. In terms of on- needed to be able to actually put the water to reservation controversies, even if the tribe's rights use. Settlements enable tribes to get funds to are not specifically spelled out within particular effect this usage, while litigation does rzof treaties, they are implied (as are water rights). ensure this financial ability. However, questions remain with respect to who has responsibility for regulating non-Indian activities on Less clear issues such as water rights either tribal lands or fee lands. In terms of off- administration and the ability to market or reservation rights, some highly-emotional cases have transfer water may be negotiated through occurred. Ms. Whiteing stated that litigation, as a settlement more advantageously than through rule, has to be initiated in order to prompt a state's litigation. interest in negotiating a settlement.

As the composition of the United States Ms. Whiteing's closing remarks centered on Supreme Court changes, tribes will be more her own perspective and thoughts on rights issues reluctant to bring their cases to that forum, and their resolution. She delineated several factors fearing challenges to the standard by which she feels are essential in getting disputing parties water rights are quantified. moving toward agreement/settlement, which include: From the states' perspective, Ms. Whiteing maintained, negotiated settlements may also be their 1. Recognition of tribal sovereignty - issues most viable option for resolving Indian water rights should be discussed and resolved on a issues for the following reasons: government-to-government basis.

States are compelled to apply federal law in 2. Recognition that tribal rights in these areas do these cases, even though state courts have indeed exist. If tribal rights are still being jurisdiction. challenged as to their validity/existence, agreement won't occur. Water rights litigation is a very expensive option especially if dealing with multiple tribes 3. The political climate needs to be right. within a reservation's borders. Whether agreements are successful or not depends in large part on the respective Quantification of rights is only the beginning "sympathies" of both state and tribal with litigation - questions regarding governments. Most advantageous would be to administration of those rights still remain. have people in each group who had taken the two steps named above and served as leaders in urging or offering recognition.

-21- 4. Public involvement and education is essential legislation, and this conference on tribal-state court to the process - both the state's public and relations seem to point to settlement of the question the tribe's public. of tribal sovereignty. Although questions may still exist as to how far sovereignty extends, the core Ms. Whiteing noted that the notions of "power" issue appears to be settled, according to Mr. Taylor. and "risk" are vital elements existing on both sides The goal now, he went on to say, is for tribes to in this process. If both (all) parties understand this protect their sovereign status and to ensure it serves to be true on both sides, this will facilitate the needs of the tribes. negotiation and settlement. The parties involved must ultimately believe, she maintained, that Mr. Taylor pointed to the third phase - entering into these negotiations is in their own best development of tribal resources - as the current interest for the process to be productive. phase of tribal activity and growth. Sovereignty has its pricc, maintained Mr. Taylor, in that provision of Econoiiiic Develoyiiiei~t/GaiiiLig/Tu.~ufiori. services to people of the reservation comes with a Michael Taylor began his presentation by noting his high price tag. Developing tribal "assets," or ways to "perplexity" at participating in a conference on pay for these services and thus enhance the quality tribal-state court relations, where officials from both of life for reservation residents is now a primary "sides" had gathered to discuss and problem-solve goal. Where Indian development occurs, state jurisdictional issues in a collegial and cooperative governments may attempt to tax the development. way. He noted he was not used to having those he In the area of taxation, for instance, tribes have perceived as the "enemy" (the state) willing to talk concurrent jurisdiction for non-Indian activity on the with tribal representatives. reservation; this raises the need for settlement of jurisdictional disputes. With regard to gaming, Mr. Taylor placed his remarks in context by some state legislatures are trying to halt this activity delineating the three phases he has witnessed in his on Indian lands. The pattern thus far has been that 22 years of working with tribes: tribes try to resolve issues through federal court and stay away from state courts if possible. Congress 1. Native American survival. has set the path for resolution of these issues, however. States must negotiate with the tribes on 2. Native American Sovereignty. gaming. If this fails, failure sends the issue into federal court. 3. Native American Development of Tribal Resources. Zottirig/Elt~~;rotiriietitalCortcenis. Daniel Decker focused on the issues raised by state officials and Mr. Taylor characterized the beginnings of his private attorneys concerning the competence of career with tribal courts, back in 1969, as the tribal court judges, attorneys, and the operational "Native American Survival" phase - a time when procedures of these courts. Mr. Decker maintained many tribes were on the verge of expiration. Some that, although tribal sovereignty may, in essence, be tribes were being pressed into a "termination assured, there still exist people who would like to period (e.g., Colville), treaty rights were being believe that tribal government does not exist. Thus, stripped away, as were tribal governments, health a large burden is placed on tribal courts. Mr. care was extremely limited, infant mortality rates Decker asserted that, in his experience, tribal courts were exceedingly high, and non-Indian development are often more accommodating to non-Indian was given priority on tribal lands. Mr. Taylor made practitioners so as not to be perceived as favoring note of several "heroes" of that era, and stated that tribal attorneys. In state courts, it is typical for the the battles were hard-fought, but these heroes tribal attorneys' credentials to be questioned, but ensured survival of the Native Americans. even more disconcerting, maintained Mr. Decker, is when state court attorneys question the credibility of The second phase described by Mr. Taylor was tribal court judges. one of sovereignty. Actions and agreements such as the Centennial Accord (Washington), federal

-22- In light of these experiences, Mr. Decker posited that the attack now is not on tribal sovereignty, but rather on the competence of the tribal court system and its actors. This, in turn, leads to the assumption that exercising tribal jurisdiction is thus in question. Further, Mr. Decker maintained, tribal courts are not trying to upand their jurisdiction, as non-Indian officials may claim; rather, these courts are simply trying to exercise jurisdiction awarded them.

Mr. Decker urged tribal courts to act reasonably, and to realize the jurisdiction they exercise, though justified, may come as a surprise to some. Any precautions tribal courts can take to mitigate these impacts should be initiated.

In turn, urged Mr. Decker, state and federal courts need to increase their respect for tribal courts, and view their decisions, judgments, and orders with comity.

At the conclusion of this session, moderator Chief Justice Exum added a fourth "C" to the theme of conference discussions - that of Commitment.

-23- STATE ACTION PLAN SUMMARIES/RECOMMENDATIONS Tuesday, July 2, 1991 1O:lS am. - I2:OO noon 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

Purpose: At this point you have discussed a series of issues and heard a variety of approaches to enhancing resolution of jurisdictional disputes. The purpose of this session is to help you identify potential changes you might make in your own state.

Process: From the "laundry list" of problems you developed yesterday, select three issues that are critical and then one of these as the target for future action. Develop a plan for addressing the issue, implementing change, and countering possible resistance.

A Identify three critical issues you believe need to be addressed in your state with regard to resolving tribal-state jurisdictional issues:

Alaska

Discrepancy between the reality of the existence of self-govcrning Native communities and their courts, and the (lack of) state legal recognition of those communities as Native American tribes. Total lack of any formal means of communication.

Colorado

Lack of interest . Lack of information Interplay in four state region

Idaho

Lack of communication between intertribal and tribal and statc courts Fact that PL-280 jurisdiction, definition/approach Absence of full faith and credit; sovereignty recognition

Kansas

Taxation Divorce, child custody, administrative court acts as tribal Transfer of cases - tribal and state court

Maine

Indian Child Welfare Act procedurc Subpoena/Warrants Legislative ambiguity

-24- A. Identify three critical issues you believe need to be addressed in your state with regard to molvfng tribal-state jurisdictional issues (cont’d):

Michiean-

Lack of state court understanding of tribal courts Lack of tribal consensus on how to address jurisdictional problems Absence of deference to tribal court decisions (comity-FFStC)

Minnesota

Recognition - threshold issue, authority to establish tribal courts to adjudicate ICWA Education - lack of communication Enforcement/ICWA - divorces and division of property, family matters

Montana

Communication Lack of understanding of tribal courts’ capabilities Recognition of sovereignty

New Mexico

Lack of a formalized government-to-government relationship Lack of education/knowledge/understanding ‘of tribal courts Lack of access of state/federal resources

North Carolina

Domestic relations and Indian Child Welfare Act

North Dakota

Education of state and tribal judges Reciprocal enforcement of judgments and orders Traffic-safety issues

Oklahoma

Public education regarding tribal courts and jurisdictional issues Civil v. Criminal jurisdiction - conflict Indian Child Welfare Act transfer of cases

Oregon

Family cases Hunting and fishing cases PL280 and ICRA effect on concurrent jurisdiction of tribes who have had tribal status restored

South Dakota

Keeping away from politics and executive problems A. Identify three critical issues you believe need to be addressed in your state with regard to resolving tribal-state jurisdictional issues (cont’d):

Lack of awareness of one another, identification Lack of availability of written tribal materials; publish opinions Lack of legislative agenda: full faith and credit; comity; Centennial Accord

Washinpton

Attitude of state courts and bar re tribal governments; state supreme court should dictate to the bar that a) tribal courts should be listed in resource dircctory; b) tribal court judges should be treated in the same manner as state courts by the bar association (e.g., complimentary copies of the Bar News); judicial training (recognizing the fact that the state judiciary has already started doing this). Make full faith and credit mandatory; support for CR 82.5; recognition by state agencies of court orders; we should explore possible difficulty of operating into the system; reporting system for non- Indians Tribal court funding is problem; would like to sec support from state for US. SB 667 (Tribal Court Enhancement Act); show support for tribal courts There needs to be a vehicle to say that Indian is defined by its tribc and not by state. This could be dealt with in education program. Education of state judges and bar association in ICWA - corollary problem, establishing paternity; certification of question of membership to the tribal court

Wisconsin

Monitoring/review of full faith and credit, and domestic abuse implementation acts Communication/education between tribal and state judiciary and to bar Law enforcement cooperation and funding, cross-deputization

Wyoming

The informational gap Absence of substantive rules of law Stability in the tribal court

B. Select one issue that should be prioritized for speedy action:

Alaska

Informal communication - person-to-person between tribal and state judiciaries

Colorado

Disseminate information to pique interest

Idaho

Improved communication between (a) tribal courts and (b) tribal and state courts

-26- B. Select one issue that should be prioritized for speedy action (cont’d):

Kansas

Agreement being reached - example for others - no state tax imposed tribal tax of a%,all to be used by tribe - settle better than litigation

Maine

ICWA

Michipan

Full faith and credit

Minnesota

Recognition

Montana

Recognition of sovereignty/enhance communication

New Mexico

Lack of a formalized government-to-government relationship; an Accord

North Carolina

Our most serious conflicts arise in the area of domestic law/custody, child support, paternity, and Indian Child Welfare Act. Since the establishment of our tribal court in July 1980, there have been only two cases appealed to our state court of appeals, both of which involved child support matters. Cherokee reservation and trust lands

North Dakota

Judicial education emphasizing ICWA for state judges

Oklahoma

Initiate an Indian judicial conference

Oregon

Reciprocity-mutuality of agreement; communication

South Dakota

Foster and maintain mutual respect, better understanding, communication

-27- B. Select one issue that should be prioritized for speedy action (cont’d):

-Utah

Lack of awareness of one another

Washinrrt on

Education

Wisconsin

Communication/education of tribal and state judiciaries and bar

Wvoming

The informational gap

C. Specify methods you feel would be most promising to address this issue:

Alaska

Meetings, letter writing, teleconferences

Colorado

Four Corners meeting - bar, social services, judges, including fcderal probation, collections agencies, Department of Welfare, others

Idaho

1. Initiate communication with tribal councils and tribal courts re roles of courts and issues which need to be addressed between tribes, intertribal, and tribal-state 2. Lack of understanding, resources/local issues re training/facilities/staff/libraries

Kansas

Agreement to be reached by Attorney General and Prairie Band Pottowatomie today Take people as individuals without preconceived notions Meet at neutral site -judges chambers - by major parties in conflict

Maine

Education Communication

Michigan

Tribal/state forum (like three pilot projects) Tribal coordination of approaches to jurisdictional issues Enactment of state legislation

-28- C. Specify methods you feel would be most promising to address this issue (cont’d):

Minnesota

Contact supreme court, administrative offices of courts, associations - get them informed and involved Informal meetings between tribal and state judiciaries Recognition litigation - meeting with tribal attorneys to decide strategy

Montana

Meeting between Montana Judges Association fall annual and Montana-Wyoming Tribal Court Judges Association Informal meetings not representing their governments

New Mexico

1. To devise an Accord between state of New Mexico and New Mexico tribes similar to the State of Washington Accord; sovereignty conference in August to formalize Accord 2. Meeting between Chief Justice Sosa and Chief Justice Tso 3. Meeting with Indian (6) legislature and judiciary

North Carolina

1. Exchange of telephone numbers and addresses between all tribal judges and state judges. 2. The local Legal Services group has agreed to sponsor an informational and educational conference on jurisdictional issues that arise between the tribal and state courts. The conference would take place at the site of the tribal court. Judges of the tribal court and state court would be invited along with other court officials. Our Chief Justice Exum has already agreed to be present to open our conference and participate. Attorneys from our judicial district and the public would be invited and the conference would be advertised to encourage attendance. 3. Establish a willingness to actually discuss jurisdictional and other problems that may arise between tribal and state courts. CLE and CJE credits for conference to insure more attendance. Inviting tribal judges to our state court judges conference and special education programs and vice versa.

North Dakota

1. Joint judicial conference on tribal-state relations and traffic-safety 2. Prepare deskbook similar to South Dakota and Washington summarizing tribal systems and procedures 3. Education of the bar association

Oklahoma

Supreme Court Rules on comity, full faith and credit

OrePon

1. Respect and seek input of elders/superiors 2. Contact judges of other Oregon tribes 3. Organize a seminar/meeting for state and tribal

-29- C. Specify methods you feel would be most promising to address this issue (cont’d):

South Dakota

True joint conference has been accomplished Formation of joint committee is being done Begin invitation to judicial training Court visits between state and tribal judges Agreements - sharing facilities; supervising probation (juvenile, too); tribal judges’ addresses; state bar directory

Regional conferences with use of state law school personnel

WashinHon

1. CR 82.5 2. Recognition by bar association, even if we go through Supreme Court to get it

Wisconsin

Letter to chief justice re meeting to discuss education; discuss the trial judges’ association Article re tribal courts and tribal jurisdiction for state bar journal List tribal courts in state bar directory

Wvoming

Structuring a forum for dialogue Include tribal judiciary in state judicial meetings Educational programs for lawyers and judges

D. The greatest obstacle(s) to getting the change accepted and in operation will come from (consider individuals as well as laws, rules, technology, funding, etc.):

Alaska

The fear and the feelings of being threatened which are experienced by both the Native and the Anglo people. Having to work in an environment of no trust.

Colorado

Funding and disinterest - individuals unnamed - policy formation and implementation

-Idaho

Perceived state court apathy

-30- D. The greatest obstacle(s) to getting the change accepted and in operation will come from (consider individuals as well as laws, rules, technology, funding, etc.) (cont’d):

Kansas

1. Press involved - inflammatory statements 2. Suit being filed - Dept. of Revenue to enforce tax law 3. Confrontational attitude of some players 4. Legislative bills attack sovereignty

Maine

Funding for education speakers Access/availability of judges

Michiean

State court trial judges Non-Indian bar

Minnesota

Lack of recognition Amendments to tribal constitution? Lack of knowledge and communication

Montana

Mistrust, lack of communication, negative perception of tribal courts and institutions, state trying to increase jurisdiction, confusion/apathy of tribal members, enforcement of judgments

New Mexico

Tribes and state need to overcome adversarial relationship Funding

North Carolina

We can’t see any obstacles - funding can be obtained through legal services.

North Dakota

1. Misconceptions of tribal courts by attorneys, judges, and others 2. Apathy 3. Lack of communication among the tribes and between the tribes and the state 4. Funding

0klahoma

Tribe to tribe conflicts

-31- D. The greatest obstacle(s) to getting the change accepted and in operation will come from (consider individuals as well as laws, rules, technology, funding, etc.) (cont'd):

Oregon

Establishment of trust

South Dakota

Keeping away from politics and executive problems

Ignorance, apathy, funding

Washinvton

Wisconsin

Wvoming

Time and priorities No historical perceptions as to Native American Culture Broader differences than jurisdiction On-going litigation

E. The first three steps which need to be taken to implement this change and to overcome these obstacles are (also list a target date for completing each of the actions and person/group that will have primary responsibility for each step):

Alaska

1. Chair will write letter to team members recapping Seattle conference, identifying issues. Time: within one month 2. Team members will respond in letters back to the Chair, providing ideas, suggestions, from their respective areas of the state. Time: within the second month 3. Chair will call a teleconference by the end of September. Refined "action" list will be decided upon at that time.

Colorado

1. Contact chief justice with report - one month 2. Explore funding options - three months 3. Plan conference - 18 months 4. Obtain invitation for tribal judges to judicial conference

Idaho

-32- E. The first three steps which need to be taken to implement this change and to overcome these obstacles are (also list a target date for completing each of the actions and person/group that will have primary responsibility for each step) (cont'd):

Kansas

1. One last effort to negotiate 2. Attorney General - give notice to tribe and one last chance to respond 3. Tribe to withdraw restraining order if assurance state not to come on reservation with criminal action

Maine

1. Contact chief justice/chief judge - three weeks 2. Investigate resources - six months 3. Present program about judge's meeting

Michigan

Tribal judge meeting - 8/91 Communication with state court administrator - 9/91

Minnesota

Inform tribal judges of proposed action Meetings between tribal judges and state court judges

Montana

1. State bar section 2. Five-state conference 3. Judges' meeting

New Mexico

August 2 - draft of Accord

North Carolina

1. Exchange of telephone numbers and addresses within the week we return 2. Conference to be held within three months 3. As needed.

North Dakota

1. Inviting tribal judges to attend the judicial conference and encourage related programming (S. Ct.) 2. Highway safety conference planning meeting to set agenda for the fall meeting, will include jurisdictional issues relative to traffic-safety only 3. Seek support of University of North Dakota and charitable organizations 4. Traffic-safety conference (October 20-24) 5. Article for state bar association publication

-33- E. The first three steps which need to be taken to implement this change and to overcome these obstacles are (also list a target date for completing each of the actions and person/group that will have primary responsibility for each step) (cont’d):

Oklahoma

Organize a tribal judicial Hold a conference, prepare recommendations to send to Oklahoma Supreme Court Present results at November state judicial conference

OreFon

Contact elders/superiors

South Dakota Utah

Ask tribal court directory bc published; ask tribal courts be included in state bar directory

Washington

Wisconsin

Contact chief justice - director of state courts; trial judges’ association State bar contact - resource directory, article on tribal courts, practical information, article on full faith and credit Develop information packet

Wvoming

Forum for dialogue - local - 9/1/91 Invitation to Wyoming Judicial Council - immediately Planning educational program for bench and bar - 1/1/92

F. Select date and place for next meeting of Seattle participants to review progress on the action plan, decide who will convene the meeting, and list others who should be invited to attend:

Alaska

-34- F. Select date and place for next meeting of Seattle participants to review progress on the action plan, decide who will convene the meeting, and list others who should be invited to attend (cont’d)

Arizona

The Arizona Forum submitted a 15 point agenda:

Action Item Method

- Annual conference (first conference held 4/91) Planning committees - Judicial education Judicial conference - Tribal court information Tribal courts directory - Tribal law availability Publication - library collections - Computer access to tribal law Publication - addition to database - Contract - choice of forum Contract negotiations - Contract - alternative dispute resolution Contract negotiations - Certification of law questions Court rules - Government-to-government relationship Proclamation and concurrent resolution - Intergovernmental agreement compilation Library collection - Compacts Drafting and negotiation - Intertribal IGA’s Negotiation - Use of IGA’s Negotiation - Uniform Enforcement of State and Tribal Courts New legislation Judgments Act Amending statutes - Uniform Acts revision

Colorado

Not applicable

Idaho

Kansas

August 15 - Topeka - Shawnee County Court (Brown, Jackson, Daniphan) All tribal (or representative) - Chas. G. Tate, Judge Develop continuous dialogue Media advised of date, place, and purpose of meeting

-35- F. Select date and place for next meeting of Seattle participants to review progress on the action plan, decide who will convene the meeting, and list others who should be invited to attend (cont’d):

Maine

Next meeting of Coordinating Council Tribal/state prosecutors will be invited to attend

Michigan

Convenor - head of Michigan Tribal Judges Association Date - August, 1991 Location - to be determined

Minnesota

Natalie Weyaus will contact tribal judges Fall meeting

Montana

After judges’ meeting; meanwhile by telephone

New Mexico

Meeting for drafting Accord - July 18, 1991, Office of Indian Affairs, 1O:OO a.m.

North Carolina

July or August

North Dakota

October - during the fall traffic-safety conference The state Governor and attorney general, University of North Dakota School of Law, selected officials from the four tribes, Justice Department, BIA solicitors

Oklahoma

Within three weeks set an organization meeting at Oklahoma City University inviting Seattle participants, Phil Luhan, Kirk Kickingbird, Arvo M, Senator Kelly Haney, Jess Green

Oregon

60 days

South Dakota Utah

Chief Justice of Utah Supreme Court and state court administrator. Judge Jenkins will convene the meeting at a convenient time.

-36- F. Select date and place for next meeting of Seattle participants to review progress on the action plan, decide who will convene the meeting, and list others who should be invited to attend (cont’d):

Washington

State forum should continue. There should be an implementation phase. Invite some state judges, too. National Center for State Courts and Conference of Chief Justices should continue project as an annual conference.

Wisconsin

State bar association contact by Pam Shannon Chief justice and state court director contact by Eric and by Jim Morhi by 7/31/91 Information packet to be assembled by Pam

Wvoming

-37- APPENDIX A

Conference Agenda/Program CMLJuRISDICI'ION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS: FROM CONFLICI' TO COMMON GROUND

Conference Program

~~ Sunday, June 30 Location

12 Noon-2:30 p.m. Registration 3rd Floor Foyer

2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Welcome, Opening Remarks, and North Room/ Conference Overview West Room

Presenters Justice Vernon R Pearson (ret.) Washington, Conference Chair Russell Jim (Yakima), Invocation Billy Frank, Jr. (Nisqually) Chief Justice Fred H. Dore, Washington Chief Justice Vincent L. McKusick, Maine Richard Van Duizend

4:OO p.m. Buses leave for Seattle Waterfront Tour and Dinner - Tillicum Village

Monday, July 1

8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Keynote Address North Room/ West Room Introduction Judge Hilda Manuel (Tohono O'odham)

Speaker Judge Monroe Gunn McKay, U. S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Break

-39- 9:45 a.m.-ll:00 am. Exploring the Relationship North Room/ West Room A tribal and state chief justice and a federal judge present the Indian, state, and federal system views of jurisdictional issues, including typical roles, concerns, and constraints.

Moderator Chief Judge Bruce Jenkins, U. S. District Court, Utah Speakers Chief Justice Tom Tso (Navajo) Chief Justice Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota Judge Roger Wollman, U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, South Dakota

11:OO a.m.-11:30 a.m. Tribal Sovereignty and the North Room/ Administration of Justice West Room in Indian Country

Introduction Billy Frank, Jr.

Speaker Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman Select Committee on Indian Affairs, U. S. Senate

11:30 a.m.-12 Noon Defining the Issues North Room/ West Room Overview of the origin and development of tribal courts; nature of jurisdictional conflicts; various intergovernmental agreements.

Moderator Jay White

Speaker Professor Ralph W. Johnson 12: 15 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Luncheon Municipal Room/ Superior Room Introduction Justice Vernon R Pearson (ret.)

Speaker ‘The Washington Centennial Accord Curtis Smitch, Director Washington Department of Wildlife

1:30 p.m-4:15 p.m. Building New Models - Forum Reports North Room: A-G South Room: H-M Demonstration forums in three East Room: N-2 states will present their respective experiences in developing and initiating an action agenda to reduce disputed cases. (Faculty to rotate between rooms, making three 45 minute presentations of reports, 15 minutes to rotate rooms).

Arizona Moderator William McDonald

Arizona Speakers David L. Withey Judge John L. Claborne Larry Ruzow Judge Ned Norris (Tohono O’odham)

Oklahoma Moderator Judge Charles Cloud (Cherokee) Oklahoma Speakers Justice Rudolph Hargrave Howard Conyers Washington Moderator Judge Thomas Schulz

Washington Speakers Justice Vernon R Pearson (ret.) Judge Anita B. Dupris (Colville) Professor Ralph W. Johnson Judge Edythe Chenois (Quinault) John Sledd Rachael Paschal

-41- 4:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. State Caucuses Municipal Room: AK, CA, DC, ID, Participants will meet briefly with NC, ND, UT partii5pants from their own states to make preliminary introductions Superior Room: and exchange ideas on the Canada, KS, MI, implications of the conference’s MN, NV, OR, SD first day on their develop of an action plan for their state. Federal Room: CO, ME, MT, NM, VA, w, wy NorthRoom: AZ South Room: OK EastRoom: WA

Tuesday, July 2

8:30 a.m.-10:OO a.m. Conflicts in Context: Identifying North Room/ Jurisdictional Concerns West Room

This plenary session will look at specific issue areas where joint tribal-state communication and cooperation is essential. The focus is not on the issues themselves, but rather on the process by which the two groups can communicate and coordinate efforts in response to unclear jurisdictional issues.

Moderator Chief Justice James G. Exum, Jr., North Carolina Domestic Relations/ICWA Speaker Craig Dorsay

Natural Resources/Hunting and Fishing/ Water Rights Speaker Jeanne S. Whiteing (Blackfeet) Economic Development/Gaming/Taxation Speaker Michael Taylor

Zoning/Environmental Concerns Speaker Daniel Decker (Flathead)

-42- 1O:OO a.m.-lO:lS a.m. Break

10:15 a.m.-12:OO Noon State Team Meetings Municipal Room: AK, CA, DC, Tribal/state/other representatives ID, NC, ND, UT from individual states will gather to discuss and develop an action plan Superior Room: outline for furthering tribal-state Canada, KS, MI relations. MN, NV, OR, SD

Federal Room: CO, ME, MT, NM, VA, WI, WY North Room: AZ South Room: OK EastRoom: WA

12: 15 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Luncheon South Room

Skits on Tribal-State Court Jurisdictional Issues

Justice Vernon R Pearson (ret.) Professor Ralph W. Johnson Rachael Paschal

1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. State Presentations: Plenary Session North Room/ West Room Representative of state team groups will present key ideas in action plans and recommendations of communication mechanisms.

Moderator Chief Justice Tom Tso (Navajo)

Reactors Professor Ralph W. Johnson Jeanne S. Whiteing (Blackfeet) Judge Hilda Manuel (Tohono Oodham)

-43- ~~

3:OO p.m.-3:15 p.m. Break

3:15 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Facing the Future: Challenges and Solutions North Room/ West Room Moderator Justice Vernon R Pearson (ret.)

Speaker F. Browning Pipestem (Otoe-Osage)

4:OO p.m. Adjourn

NOTE: Due to the illness of Mr. Pipestem, the conference summary and challenge were presented by Judge William A. Thorne, Jr. (Porno), Third Circuit Court, Salt Lake City, Utah.

-44- APPENDIX B

Coordinating Council Members Participant List Faculty List COORDINATING COUNCIL+

chair: Justice Vernon R. Pearson (ret.) (State Appellate Justice) 3408 117th Avenue NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (206) 265-2577

Vice Chair: Chief Justice James G. Exum, Jr. (State Appellate Justice) Supreme Court of North Carolina Justice Building P. 0. Box 1841 Raleigh, NC 27602 (919) 733-3715

Judge Charles R. Cloud (State Trial Court Judge) Norfolk General District Court Criminal Division (B) 811 East City Hall Avenue, Room 265 Norfolk, VA 23510-2772 (804) 683-9301 Chief Judge Bruce S. Jenkins (U. S. District Court Judge) U. S. District Court 251 U. S. Courthouse 350 South Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 524-5167

Professor Ralph W. Johnson (Legal Scholar/Consultant) Law School JB 20 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 543-4938 (206) 543-5671 (fax)

Chief Judge Hilda A. Manuel (Tribal Court Judge) Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Judicial Services 18th and C Streets, NW MS4627 MIB Washington, DC 20245 (202) 208-4400

-46- Coordinating Council

William L McDonald (State Court Administrator) Administrative Director of the Courts Supreme Court of Arizona 1501 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-9301 F. Browning Pipestem (Indian Lawyer/Indian Judge) Pipestem, Carter, and Lamirand Financial Center 111 North Peters, Suite 200 Norman, OK 73069 (405) 329-3840

Judge Thomas E. Schulz (State Trial Court Judge) Superior Court First Judicial District 415 Main Street, Room 402 Ketchikan, AK 99901 (907) 225-3141

Chief Justice Tom Tso (Tribal Court Judge) Office of the Chief Justice Navajo Nation P. 0.Box Drawer 520 Window Rock, AZ 86515 (602) 87 1-6762

Jay V. White, Attorney (Non-Indian Lawyer) 5341 Ballard Avenue, NW Seattle, WA 98107 (206) 789-4483

Jeanne S. Whiteing, Attorney (Legal Scholar/Consultant) Whiteing and Thompson 1136 Pearl Street, Suite 203 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 444-2549

Judge Roger L. Wollman (U. S. Appellate Court Judge) 311 Federal Building and U. S. Courthouse 400 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, SD 57102 (605) 330-4411

-41- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS JUNE 30, 1991- JULY 2, 1991 SEATTLE, WA

HELEN M. ABRAHAM DIANE ALTMAN SOCIAL WORKER 4 EDITOR, OAC REPORT DCFS REGION I1 OFFICE OF THE AD OF THE COURTS P.O. BOX 12500 M.S. 839-10 1206 SOUTH QUINCE YAKIMA, WA 98909 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 (509) 865-9600

GARY L. ACEVEDO PHILLIP AMBROSE ASSOCIATE JUDGE REGIONAL INDIAN COORDINATOR FLATHEAD TRIBAL COURT WASHINGTON, DSHS, IPSS P.O. BOX 278 P.O. BOX 12500 PABLO, MT 59855 YAKIMA, WA 98909-2500 (406) 675-2700 (509) 454-41 16

ALJOE AGARD ELIZABETH ARGALL VICE CHAIRMAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE OFFICE OF THE PREMIER P.O. BOX D PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS FORT YATES, ND 58538 VICTORIA, BC V8V (701) 854-7231

MICHELLE AGUILAR RAYMOND D. AUSTIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WA STATE INDIAN AFFAIRS JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL 605 llTH AVENUE S. #112 PS-14 P.O. DRAWER 520 OLYMPIA, WA 98503 WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 (206) 753-2411 (602) 871-6762

GEORGE ALMERIGI TOM BAHE COUNCIL CHAIRMAN MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL P.O. BOX 158 P.O. DRAWER 520 OKMULGEE, OK 74447 WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 (918) 756-1410 ( 602 1 87 1-6762

-48- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

ROBERT E. BAKES STANLEY BIRD CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUDGE IDAHO SUPREME COURT SAN JUAN PUEBLO TRIBAL COUNCIL 451 WEST STATE STREET P.O. BOX 1099 BOISE, ID 83720 SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NM 87566-1099 (208) 334-3288 (505) 852-4475

EDWARD 1. BARBER TOM BIRDBEAR CHIEF JUDGE INTERIM LAW STUDENT LAC COURTE OREILLES THREE AFFILIATED RR 2 BOX 2700 TRIBES HAYWARD, WI 54843 NEW TOWN, ND 58763 (715) 634-8934

WILLIE BEGAY MARY A. BLACK JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL ABSENTEE SHAWNEE TRIBE P.O. DRAWER 520 231 NORTH BROADWAY WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 SHAWNEE, OK 74801 ( 602 1 87 1-6763 (405) 275-01 23

PAUL BENDER DAVID BONGA INDIAN LAW SECTION MAGISTRATE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA KALISPEL INDIAN TRIBE 2222 NORTH ALVARADO ROAD P.O. BOX 39 PHOENIX, A2 85004 USK, WA 99180 ( 602 1 253-81 92 (509) 445-1 147

HOWARD BICHLER MARGUERITE BOSTROM TRIBAL ATTORNEY TRIBAL COURT JUDGE ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, P.O. BOX 287 2002 EAST 28TH STREET HERTEL, WI 54845 TACOMA, WA 98404 (715) 349-2195 (206) 597-6200

-49- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

MIKE BOTHUN LANCE W. BURR ASSSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY NORTH DAKOTA DOT SPECIALIST-INDIAN LAW 608 EAST BOULEVARD 16 EAST 13TH STREET BISMARCK, ND 58505-0700 LAWRENCE, KS 66044 (701) 224-4387 (913) 842-1133

MICHELLE BOYER RICHARD CAMERON TRIBAL JUDGE COUNCILLOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS SWAN LAKE INDIAN BAND 206 GREENOUGH STREET P.O. BOX 368 SAULT STE. MARIE, MI 49783 SWAN LAKE, MANITOBA , CN ROG ( 906) 635-6050 (204) 836-2101

EVELYNE E. BRADLEY LEAH 3. CARPENTER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ATTORNEY JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL ANISHINABE LEGAL SERVICES P.O. DRAWER 520 P.O. BOX 157 WINDOW ROCK, A2 86515 CASS LAKE, MN 56633-0157 ( 602 1 87 1-6762 (218) 335-2223

ROBERT C. BRAUCHLI LINDA CATALAN0 TRIBAL ATTORNEY LEGAL ASSISTANCE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE OF NORTH DAKOTA P.O. BOX 700 P.O. BOX 1893 HHITERIVER, A2 85941 BISMARCK, ND 50502-1893 (602) 338-4346 (701) 222-2110

BRENT BRUNNELL BRIAN H. COLLINS COORDINATOR CHIEF JUDGE N. DAKOTA INDIAN AFFAIRS COMM. COEUR D'ARLENE TRIBE OF IDAHO 600 EAST BOULEVARD TRIBAL HEADQUARTERS BISMARCK, ND 58505-0300 PLUMMER, ID 83851 (701 224-42 16 (208) 686-1 61 1 CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

ELBRIDGE COOCHISE DON DANIELS ADMI NISTRATOR/CH IEF JUDGE COUNCILLOR NW INTERIBAL COURT SYSTEM SWAN LAKE INDIAN BAND 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, #305 P.O. BOX 368 EDMONDS, WA 98020 SWAN LAKE, MANITOBA , CN ROG (206) 774-5808 (204) 836-2101

DONALD 0. COSTELLO JEFF DAVIS CHIEF JUDGE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT SPECIALIST CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION P.O. BOX 26567 WARM SPRINGS, OR 97761-0850 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125-6567 (503) 553-3454 (505) 766-3172

WILLIAM T. COTTON HON. DORA DAWES EXECUT IV E D IRECTOR JUDGE ALASKA JUDICIAL COUNCIL TONTO APACHE TRIBAL CA 1029 WEST 3RD AVENUE, #201 TONTO APACHE RES #30 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-1917 PAYSON, AZ 85541 (907) 279-2526 (602) 474-8625

PATRICK CREGAR ERIC DENHOFF ASSISTANT PROGRAM MANAGER DEPUTY MINISTER DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SECURITY MINISTRY OF NATIVE AFFAIRS 220 NORTH LEREAUX 712 YATES STREET, 5TH FLOOR FLAGSTAFF, AZ 86001 VICTORIA, BC V8V (602) 779-2731 (604) 387-6838

BENJAMIN CURTIS BRENDA C. DESMOND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE INDIAN LAW CLINIC ATTORNEY NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL LAW SCHOOL P.O. DRAWER 520 UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA WINDWO ROCK, AZ 86515 MISSOULA, MT 59812 (602) 871-6763 (406) 243-4311

-51- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

JAMES G. DEVINNEY IDELL DUFFY ATTORNEY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WRIGHT & COLE WISCONSIN INDIAN RESOURCE COUN 2200 CLASSEN BOULEVARD uw-SP OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73106 STEVENS POINT, WI 54481 (405) 524-8500 (715) 346-2746

LOUISE DIXEY EMMA DULICK JUDGE JUDGE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES MW INTERTRIBAL COURT SYSTEM P.O. BOX 306 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, #305 FORT HALL, ID 83203 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (208) 238-3905 (206) 774-5808

MARK DOBBS AMBROSE ENCINAS LAW CLERK JUDGE CREEK NATION OF OKLAHOMA TOHONO O'ODHAM JUDICIARY P.O. BOX 652 P.O. BOX 761 OKMULGEE, OK 74447 SELLS, AZ 85634 (918) 758-1412 ( 602 383-31 93

CLARENCE DOUGLAS EUNICE ESQUIRO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPELLATE JUDGE CREEK NATION OF OKLAHOMA WARM SPGS. CONFEDERATED TRIBES P.O. BOX 652 P.O. BOX 850 OKMULGEE, OK 74447 WARM SPRINGS, OR 97761 (918) 756-1412 (503) 553-3450

MATTHEW J. DOWD PETER EWERT DISTRICT JUDGE EXECUTIVE CROWN COUNSEL STATE OF KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL B.C. 300 SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 910 GOVERNMENT STREET TOPEKA, KS 66603 VICTORIA, BC V8V (913) 291-4387 (604) 356-0135

-52- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

EDWARD N. FADELEY NEIL T. FLORES JUSTICE CHIEF JUDGE OREGON SUPREME COURT COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES SUPREME COURT BUILDING P.O. BOX BH SALEM, OR 97310 PARKER, AZ 85344 (503) 378-601 6 (602) 669-921 1

CHERYL FAIRBANKS GLORIA K. FOHRENKAM SENIOR POLICY ANALYST INDIAN CHILD WELFARE SPEC. NM OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFIARS DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SECURITY 224 EAST PALACE AVENUE P.O. BOX 6123 SITE CODE 940A SANTA FE, NM 87501 PHOENIX, AZ 85009 (505) 827-6440 ( 602 542-3981

ALLAN J. FELIX KAREN B. FOSTER TRIBAL CHIEF AREA TRIBAL GOVERNMENT OFFICER PRINCE ALGERT TRIBAL COUNCIL BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS BOX 2350 P.O. BOX 26567 PRINCE ALGERT, SASK., 00 S6V ALBUQUERQUE, NM 871 12 (306) 922-7800 (505) 766-3172

SHERMAN G. FINESILVER LEONARD FOSTER CHIEF JUDGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR US DISTRICT COURT NM OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 1929 STOUT STREET, ROOM C224 224 EAST PULACE AVENUE DENVER, CO 80294 SANTA FE, NM 87501 (303) 844-4151 (505) 827-6440

JAMES P. FITZSIMMONS DONOVAN FOUGHTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COUNTY JUDGE NORTH DAKOTA LEGAL SERVICES RAMSEY/TOWNER COUNTY P.O. BOX 217 BOX 2 RAMSEY COUNTY COURT NEW TOWN, ND 58763-0217 DEVILS LAKE, ND 58301 (701 1 627-471 9 (701) 662-7010

-53- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

MARK FOX ROSEMARY GARCIA INTERIM LAW STUDENT APPELLATE JUDGE THREE AFFILIATED ARIZONA INDIAN JUDGES TRIBES 3432 EAST RIVER ROAD NEW TOWN, ND 58763 TUCSON, AZ 85718 ( 602 299-0062

CRAIG J. FRANSEEN TIM T. GOODLUCK MAGISTRATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE COURT OF INDIAN OFFENSES NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL 1914 LAKE ROAD P.O. DRAWER 520 PONCA CITY, OK 74604-4817 WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 (405 762-5447 ( 602 1 87 1-676'3

RICHARD T. FREDERICK FRANK X. GORDON, JR. CHIEF JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE TURTLE MOUNTAIN CHIPPEWA SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 900 1501 WEST WASHINGTON STREET BELCOURT, ND 58316 PHOENIX, AZ 85007-3327 (701) 477-6121 ( 602 1 542-453 1

ED FRYE BENNY A. GRAFF COUNCIL MEMBER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE CREEK NATION SOUTH CENTRAL JUDICIAL DIST. P.O. BOX 158 P.O. BOX 1013 OKMULGEE, OK 74447 BISMARCK, ND 58502-101 3 (918) 756-1410 (701 '222-6682

JIM GANJE LARRY R. GRAHAM STAFF ATTORNEY JUDGE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 68 BISMARCK, ND 58505-0530 WADSWORTH, NV 89442 (701) 224-2689 (702) 575-4585

-54- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

VERBENA GREENE EDWARD HAYDEN APPELLATE JUDGE COUNCILLOR WARM SPGS. CONFEDERATED TRIBES ROSEAU RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. BOX 850 P.O. BOX 30 WARM SPRINGS, OR 97761 GINEW, MB ROA (503) 553-3450 (204) 427-2139

EMIL L. GRIESER HON. ED HELEAM STAT E REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA MISSOULA MONTANA RR1 BOX 144 200 WEST BROADWAY HOBART, OK 73651 MISSOULA, AZ 59801 (405) 726-2991 (406) 523-4771

ANTHONY HALE LAWRENCE HENRY CHIEF JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES ROSEAU RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. BOX 220 P.O. BOX 30 NEW TOWN, ND 58763 GINEW, MB ROA (701 627-3617 (204) 427-2139

KELLY HANEY LEONARD HILT, SR. STATE SENATOR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL STATE CAPITOL P.O. DRAWER 520 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 (405) 524-0126 (602) 871-6762

SHARON L. HANSEN MARINA F. HORSE COUNTY JUDGE , MONTEZUMA ASSOCIATE JUDGE STATE OF COLORADO SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES 601 WEST MILDRED ROAD P.O. BOX 306 CORTEZ, CO 81321 FORT HALL, ID 83203 (303) 565-8798 (208) 238-3904

-55- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

MAE HORSEMAN LEON D. JONES FAMILY COURT JUDGE CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL CFR COURT P.O. DRAWER 520 CHEROKEE INDIAN AGENCY WINDOW ROCK, A2 86515 CHEROKEE, NC 28719 ( 602 1 87 1-6762 (704) 497-7720

PAUL HOUSTON LAWRENCE JOSHUA JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL DEVILS LAKE SIOUX TRIBE P.O. DRAWER 520 P.O. BOX 30 WINDOW ROCK; A2 86515 FORT TOTTEN, ND 58335 (602) 871-6763 (701) 766-4244

JOHN T. JAMES FRANK KAMP COUNCILLOR COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ROSEAU RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION P.O. BOX 30 P.O. BOX 158 GINEW, MB ROA OKMULGEE, OK 74447 (204) 427-2139 (918) 758-1416

JOE JOHNSON JOSHUA 3. KANASSATEGA CHIEF JUSTICE SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY CREEK NATION OF OKLAHOMA LEONARD STREET & DEINARD P.O. BOX 652 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET OKMULGEE, OK 74447 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 (918) 758-1412 (612) 335-1874

ROLAND E. JOHNSON JULIE S. KANE ASSISTANT AREA DIRECTOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS STATE OF WASHINGTON P.O. BOX 26567 500 W. 8TH STREET SUITE 110 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125-6567 VANCOUVER, WA 98660 (505) 766-31 57 (206) 696-6471

-56- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

PHILLIP KATZEN DELFRED LESLIE COORDINATOR N.A. PROJECT ASSOCIATE JUDGE EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES HOPI TRIBAL COURT 101 YESLER SUITE 301 P.O. BOX 156 SEATTLE, WA 98104 KEAMS CANYON, A2 86034 (206) 464-0838 (602) 738-2288

ROBERT KITTECON BRUCE LEV1 CHIEF JUDGE COUNSEL MENOMINEE TRIBAL COURT NORTH DAKOTA CONSENSUS COUNCIL P.O. BOX 429 1003 INTERSTATE AVENUE KESHENA, WI 54135 BISMARCK, ND 58501-0500 (715) 799-3348 (701 224-0588

ANNETTE KLAPSTEIN LANSFORD W. LEVITT TRIBAL ATTORNEY DIRECTOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE 2002 EAST 28TH STREET UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO TACOMA, WA 98404 RENO, NV 89557 (206) 597-6200 (702) 784-6747

ARTHUR LEBLANC LOUISE C. LOPEZ TRIBAL JUDGE CHAIRPERSON BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMITTEE TONTO APACHE TRIBE ROUTE 1 BOX 313 TONTO APACHE RES #30 BRIMLEY, MI 49715 PAYSON, A2 85541 (906) 248-3241 (602) 474-5000

EILEEN LENTE-KASERO DOUGLAS W. LUNA COURT ADMINISTRATOR ASSOCIATE JUDGE PUEBLO OF LAGUNA NW INTERTRIBAL COURT SYSTEM P.O. BOX 194 121 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, #305 LAGUNA, NM 87026 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (505) 552-6687 (206) 774-5808

-57- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

RICHARD D. LUPKE PAT MCKEEVER CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE APAHCE COUNTY ARIZONA 6TH CIRCUIT SOUTH DAKOTA BOX 365 P.O. BOX 758 ST. JOHNS, AZ 85936-0365 PIERRE, SD 57532-0758 (602) 337-4364 (605) 773-3994

WANDA L. LYONS ROY MCKINNEY CHIEF JUDGE CHIEF RED LAKE TRIBAL COURTS SWAN LAKE INDIAN BAND BOX 572 P.O. BOX 368 RED LAKE, MN 56671-0572 SWAN LAKE, MANITOBA , CN ROG (218) 679-3303 (204) 836-2101

TWILA MARTIN-KEKAHBAH WHITNEY G. MCKINNEY CHAIRPERSON CHIEF TRIBAL JUDGE TURTLE MOUNTAIN CHIPPEWA SHOSHOWE-PALUTE TRIBES P.O. BOX 900 P.O. BOX 219 BELCOURT, ND 58316 OWYHEE NEVADA, NV 89832-0219 (701 477-6451 (702) 757-'2741

ELDON M. MCCABE ED MCLEAN CHIEF JUDGE JUDGE PUEBLO OF LAGUNA 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MISSOULA P.O. BOX 194 COUNTY COURTHOUSE-DEPT. #1 LAGUNA, NM 87026 MISSOULA, MT 59802 (505) 552-6687 (406) 444-2621

PHYLLIS C. MCKEEHEN CRAIG MCMAHON COUNTY CLERK MAGISTRATE SKAGIT COUNTY ALASKA COURT SYSTEM P. 0. BOX 837 P.O. BOX 1571 MOUNT VERNON , WA 98273-0837 BETHEL, AK 99559 (206) 336-9440 ( 907 1 543-2298

-58- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

ANDREW MEAD FREDERICK G. MILLER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY PENOBSCOT TRIBAL COURT NAT'L CENTER FOR STATE COURTS P.O. BOX 365 220 BUSH STREET, SUITE 1500 OLD TOWN, ME 04468-0365 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 (207) 827-5639 (41 5) 539-71 51

MYLO J. MEHLHOFF JULENE MILLER DIRECTOR DRIVER LICENSE/SAFETY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL 608 EAST BOULEVARD AVENUE 301 WEST lOTH BISMARCK, ND 58505-0700 TOPEKA, KS 6661 2-1 597 (701) 224-2600 (91 3) 296-221 5

JUNE L. MELVIN MARY MILLER ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR DIRECTOR, TRIBAL AFFAIRS ABA CENTER ON CHILDREN/LAW KAWERAK, INC. 1800 M STREET NW, #300 SOUTH P.O. BOX 948 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 NOME, AK 99762 (202) 331-2234 (907) 443-5231

DAVID MERRILL ROBERT A. MILLER TRIBAL JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA OF WISCON, P.O. BOX 287 500 EAST CAPITOL HERTEL, WI 54845 PIERRE , SO 57501 -5070 (715) 349-2195 (605) 773-6254

WANDA MILES SUSAN MILLER CHIEF JUDGE SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICER NEZ PERCE TRIBAL COURT ALASKA COURT SYSTEM P.O. BOX 305 303 K STREET LAPWAI, ID 83540-0305 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-2099 (208) 843-5420 (907) 264-8229

-59- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

DAVID R. MINIKEL ANDREW MORIN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL COURT PROCESSOR DSHS-ATTORNEY GENERAL DEVILS LAKE SIOUX TRIBE MAIL STOP QF-11 P.O. BOX 30 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8072 FORT TOTTEN, ND 58335 (206) 459-6944 (701) 766-4244

JAMES B. MOHR JOE W. MOUNTAIN JUDGE TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER VILAS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT STANDING ROCK SLOAX P.O. BOX 369 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX D EAGLE RIVER, W1 54521 FORT YATES, ND 58538 (608) 266-7807 (701 854-7231

JOANNE MOORE GEORGE W. NEILSON COURT SPECIALIST JUDGE WA STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 1206 SOUTH QUINCE ST. MS EZ-11 510 JUSTICE BUILDING OLYMPIA, WA 98504 SALEM, OR 97310 (206) 352-1871 (503) 475-3317

PATRICK MOORE DENNIS NELSON DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TRIBAL PROSECUTOR CREEK NATION OF OKLAHOMA PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS P.O. BOX 652 2002 EAST 28TH STREET OKMULGEE, OK 74447 TACOMA, WA 98404 (918) 758-1412 (206) 597-6200

LANE MORGAN MICHAEL NELSON CRT. CLERK-COURT ADMINISTRATOR PRESIDING JUDGE CREEK NATION OF OKLAHOMA APACHE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT P.O. BOX 652 P.O. BOX 667 OKMULGEE, OK 74447 ST. JOHNS, AZ 85936 (918) 756-1412 (602) 337-4852 CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

GEORGE NOLAN ROBERT ORTIZ TRIBAL JUDGE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL 206 GREENOUGH STREET P.O. DRAWER 520 SAULT STE. MARIE, MI 49783 WINDOW ROCK, A2 86515 (906) 635-6050 (602) 871-6763

LAWRENCE NUMKENA CHRISTINE OWENS CHIEF JUDGE ASSOCIATE JUDGE PASSCUA YAQUI TRIBAL COURT SALT RIVER TRIBAL COURT 7474 SOUTH CAMINO DE OESTE ROUTE #1 BOX 216 TUCSON, AZ 85746 SCOTTSDALE, A2 85257 (602) 578-31 18 (602) 941-7218

EVERETT N. OLSON SUSAN OWENS JUDGE JUDGE NORTH DAKOTA JUDICIAL SYSTEM QUILEUTE TRIBAL COURT WARD COUNTY COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 279 MINOT, ND 58701 LAPUSH, WA 98350 (701) 838-8305 (206) 374-61 63

ROBERT OLSON DELBERT W. RAY, SR PROJECT MANAGER CHIEF JUDGE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SALT RIVER TRIBAL COURT 608 EAST BOULEVARD ROUTE #1 BOX 216 BISMARCK, ND 58505-0700 SCOTTSDALE, A2 85256 (701 1 224-4397 (602) 941-7212

DAVID ORR ELIZABETH R. REDBEAR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR II PROGRAM MANAGER DSHS-OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENF. YAKIMA INDIAN NATION P.0. BOX 9162 MS:J-31 POST OFFICE BOX 151 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 TOPPENISH, WA 98948 (206) 586-3283 (509) 865-5121

-61- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

LISA C. REDFORD LEE B. ROY PUBLIC DEFENDER VICE CHARIMAN NORTHWEST INTER COURT SYSTEM JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL 121 5TH AVEN NORTH, SUITE 305 P.O. DRAWER 520 EDMONDS, WA 98020 WINDOW ROCK, A2 86515 (206) 774-5808 ( 602 1 87 1-6763

CARL ROBERTS SIERA T. RUSSELL ADVISOR ADMI NISTRATIVE DIRECTOR ROSEAU RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX 30 COLLEGE OF LAW GINEW, MB ROA TEMPE, AZ 85287-7906 (204) 427-2139 ( 602) 965-6204

GARY ROBERTS SOL SANDERSON CHAIRMAN ADVISOR ROSEAU RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL ROSEAU RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. BOX 30 P.O. BOX 30 GINEW, MB ROA GINEW, MB ROA (204) 427-2139 (204) 427-2139

JOHN V. ROME1 TERRY C. SANDERSON JUDGE DIR. INDIAN GOV'T DEVELOPMENT PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE PRINCE ALGERT TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. BOX 476 BOX 2350 MACHIAS, ME 04654-0476 PRINCE ALGERT, SASK., 00 S6V (207) 255-3777 (306) 922-7800

FRANCIS ROSANDER DIANE P. SCHNEIDER ASSOCIATE JUDGE CONCILIATION SPECIALIST QUINAULT TRIBAL COURT COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICES P.O. BOX 99 915 SECOND AVENUE, NO. 1898 TAHOLAH, HA 98587 SEATTLE, WA 98174 (206) 276-8211 (206) 553-4465

-62- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

JENNIFER SCOTT PAUL SIEWELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PROSECUTOR WA STATE INDIAN AFFAIRS QUILEUTE TRIBAL COURT 605 llTH AVENUE S. #112 PF-14 P.O. BOX 279 OLYMPIA, WA 98503 LAPUSH, WA 98350 (206) 753-2411 (206) 374-61 63

MARLIN SCOTT HAILA SILVERTREES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE (NO ORGAN1 ZATIONAL NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL AFFILIATION) P.O. DRAWER 520 726 13TH WAY SW WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (602) 871-6763 (206) 776-4853

PAM SHANNON JENNIFER SKEET SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY STAFF ATTORNEY W I SCON S IN L EGIS LATI VE COUNCI L JUD. COMM. NAVAJO NAT. COUNCIL P.O. BOX 2536 P.O. DRAWER 520 MADISON, WI 53701-2536 WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 (608) 266-2680 (602) 871-6762

JILL E. SHIBLES ALEEN M. SMITH DIRECTOR TRIBAL ATTORNEY PENOBSCOT TRIBAL COURT THE NORTH PACIFIC RIM P.O. BOX 365 3300 C STREET OLD TOWN, ME 04468-0365 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 (207) 827-5639 (907) 562-4155

DAVID SIEGLER JANE M. SMITH TRIBAL ATTORNEY COURT ADMINISTRATOR BAD RIVER TRIBE COLVILLE TRIBAL COURT P.O. BOX 39 P.O. BOX 150 ODANAH, WI 54861 NESPELEM, WA 991 55-01 50 (715) 682-7107 (509) 634-8846

-63- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

JERRY L. SMITH ERVIN SOULIER STATE SENATOR TRIBAL JUDGE OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE BAD RIVER TRIBE 1424 TERRACE DRIVE P.O. BOX 39 TULSA, OK 74104 ODANAH, WI 54861 (918) 744-7200 (715) 682-7105

JOHN J. SNOW KELLY ANN SPECK JUDGE ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER DISTRICT COURT MINISTRY OF NATIVE AFFAIRS 102 VAN HORN STREET 5TH FLOOR, 712 YATES STREET MURPHY, NC 28906 VICTORIA, ’ BC V8V (704) 837-5052 (604) 356-8699

ARTHUR H. SNOWDEN, I1 ROBERT T. STEPHAN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR ATTORNEY GENERAL ALASKA COURT SYSTEM STATE OF KANSAS 303 K STREET KANSAS JUDICIAL CENTER ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 TOPEKA, KS 66612 ( 9071 264-0547 (91 3) 296-221 5

DAN SOSA, JR. MARJORIE TALAYUMPTEWA CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO HOPI TRIBAL COURT P.O. BOX 848 P.O. BOX 156 SANTA FE, NM 87503 KEAMS CANYON, AZ 86034 (505) 827-4887 (602) 738-2288

SARAH C. SOTOMISH RICHARD V. THOMAS CLAIMS OFFICER I JUSTICE DSHS-OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENF. WYOMING SUPREME COURT P.0. BOX 9162 MS:H3-31 P.O. BOX 1556 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 CHEYENNE, WY 82003-1556 (206) 586-3393 (307) 777-7573

-64- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

ROBERT W. THOMPSON MARY ELLEN VARVEL STAFF ATTORNEY HEARING OFFICER OKLAHOMA SENATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS PORTAT ION 309 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING 608 EAST BOULEVARD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 BISMARCK, ND 58505-0700 (405) 521-5741 (701 224-4397

WILLIAM A. THORNE PHILIP H. VILES THIRD CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT CHEROKEE NATION 451 SOUTH 200 EAST P.O. BOX 518 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 CLAREMORE, OK 74018 (801 1 533-3900 (918) 341-9577

GRACE F. THORPE LUTHER WAHWASUCK DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TRIBAL VICE-CHAIRMAN SAC AND FOX NATION PRAIRIE BAND POTOWATOMI 100 WATSON DRIVE, APT. L2 ROUTE 2 BOX 50A YALE, OK 74085 MAYETTA, KS 66509 (918) 387-2162 (91 3) 966-2255

KATHRYN TIRNEY GREG WALLACE STAFF ATTORNEY DIRECTOR, JUVENILE COURT SERV. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMITTEE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT ROUTE 1 BOX 313 600 EAST BOULEVARD BRIMLEY, MI 49715 BISMARCK, ND 58505-0530 (906) 248-3241

JOHN A. TURCHENESKE VINCENT WALLULATUM RESEARCH CONSULTANT APPELLATE JUDGE RESEARCH UNLIMITED WARM SPGS. CONFEDERATED TRIBES ROUTE ONE BOX 155 P.O. BOX 850 RIVER FALLS, WI 54022-91 16 WARM SPRINGS, OR 97761 (715) 425-7181 (503) 553-3450

-65- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS PARTICIPANT LIST

DAVID HARD WILBUR WILKENSON CHIEF JUDGE CHAIRPERSON YAKIMA TRIBAL COURT THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES P.O. BOX 151 P.O. BOX 220 TOPPENISH, HA 98948 NEW TOWN, ND 58763 (509) 877-4043 (701 1 627-4781

GEORGE WATTS CATHERINE WILSON CHAIRMAN COUNSEL NUU-CHAH-NULTH TC HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE BOX 1883 1329 LONGWORTH HOB PORT ALBERNI, BC 00V9Y-7Ml WASHINGTON, DC 20002 (604) 724-5757 (202) 226-2311

LORETTA WEBSTER TALL1S WOODWARD ASSOCIATE VICE CHANCELLOR CODE WRITER UNIVERSITY OF STEVENS POINT NW INTERTRIBAL COURT SYSTEM OLD MAIN 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, #305 STEVENS POINT, WI 54481 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (715) 344-3879 (206) 774-5808

STAN WEBSTER WISCONSIN INDIAN RESOURCE COUNCIL, INC uw-SP STEVENS POINT, WI 54481 (715) 346-2746

NATALIE Y. WEYAUS CHIEF JUSTICE MILLE LACS BAhD OF CHIPPEWAS HCR 67 BOX 194 ONAMIA, MN 56359 (612) 532-4181

-66- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS JUNE 30, 1991 - JULY 2, 1991 SEATTLE, WA

EDYTHE CHENOIS FRED H. DORE JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE,SUPREME COURT OF QUINAULT TRIBAL COURT WASHINGTON, TEMPLE OF JUSTICE P.O. BOX 189 MAIL STOP AV-11 TAHOLAH, WA 98587 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-051 1 (206) 276-8211 (206 1 357-2 102

JOHN L. CLABORNE CRAIG 3. DORSAY JUDGE ATTORNEY ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS WILLNER,ZABINSKY,DORSAY,CORDEL 1501 WEST WASHINGTON 111 S.W. FRONT, SUITE 303 PHOENIX, AZ 85007 PORTLAND, OR 97204-3500 (602 1 542-1 480 (503) 228-4000

CHARLES R. CLOUD ANITA DUPRIS STATE TRIAL COURT JUDGE CHIEF JUDGE NORFOLK GENERAL DISTRICT COURT COLVILLE TRIBAL COURT 811 E. CITY HALL AVE. ROOM 265 P.O. BOX 150 NORFOLK, VA 23510-2772 NESPELEM, WA 99155-0150 (804) 683-9301 (509) 634-8880

HOWARD CONYERS RALPH 3. ERICKSTAD ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR CHIEF JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA CITY SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA 1915 NORTH STILES, SUITE 305 600 EAST BOULEVARD AVENUE OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 BISMARCK, ND 58505-0530 (405) 521-2450 (701) 224-4205

DANIEL DECKER JAMES G. EXUM TRIBAL ATTORNEY CHIEF JUSTICE FLATHEAD TRIBE SUPREME COURT OF N. CAROLINA P.O. BOX 278 P.O. BOX 1841 PABLO, MT 59855 RALEIGH, NC 27602 (406) 675-2700 (919) 733-3715

-67- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS FACULTYISTAFF ROSTER

BILLY FRANK, JR RALPH W. JOHNSON CHAIRMAN PROFESSOR NW INDIAN FISH COMMISSION LAW SCHOOL, JB 20 2527 MARTIN WAY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON OLYMPIA, HA 98506 SEATTLE, WA 98105 (206) 438-1180 (206) 543-4938

RUDOLPH HARGRAVE HILDA A. MANUEL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BRANCH OF JUDICIAL SERVICES STATE CAPITOL BUILDING BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS ROOM 245 18TH AND C STREETS, NW OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 WASHINGTON, DC 20245 (405) 521-3845 (202 1 208-4400

DANIEL K. INOUYE WILLIAM L. MCDONALD UNITED STATES SENATE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA AFFAIRS 1501 WEST WASHINGTON HASHINGTON, DC 20510-6480 PHOENIX, A2 85007 (202) 224-2251 (602) 542-9301

BRUCE S. JENKINS MONROE G. MCKAY U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JUDGE 251 U.S. COURTHOUSE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 350 SOUTH MAIN STREET 6012 FEDERAL BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84138 (801 1 524-51 67 (801) 524-5252

RUSSELL JIM VINCENT L. MCKUSICK MANAGER, WASTE MGMT. PROGRAM CHIEF JUSTICE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT P.O. BOX 151 P.O. BOX 4910 POPPENISH, WA 98948 PORTLAND, ME 04112-4910 (509) 865-2255 (207) 879-4791

-68- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS FACULTYISTAFF ROSTER

NED NORRIS THOMAS E. SCHULZ CHIEF JUDGE JUDGE TOHONO O'ODHAM JUDICIARY SUPERIOR COURT P.O. BOX 761 415 MAIN STREET, ROOM 400 SELLS, AZ 85634 KETCHIKAN , AK 99901-6399 (602) 383-3193 (907 225-31 41

RACHAEL PASCHAL JOHN C. SLEDD LAW SCHOOL TRIBAL ATTORNEY 38 20 SUQUAMISH TRIBE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON P.O. BOX 498 SEATTLE, WA 98105 SUQUAMISH, WA 98392 (206) 543-4938 (206) 598-331 1

VERNON R. PEARSON MICHAEL TAYLOR RETIRED JUSTICE RESERVATION ATTORNEY SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON COLVILLE TRIBES 3408 117TH AVENUE NORTH WEST P.O. BOX 150 GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 NESPELEM, WA 991 55 (206) 265-2577 ( 509 1 634-47 1 1

BROWNING F. PIPESTEM TOM TSO ATTORNEY AT LAW CHIEF JUSTICE FINANCIAL CENTER NAVAJO NATION 111 NORTH PETERS, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX DRAWER 520 NORMAN, OK 73069 WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 (405) 329-3840 (602 1 87 1-6762

LAWRENCE A. RUZOW RICHARD VAN DUIZEND ATTORNEY AT LAW DEPUTY DIRECTOR NAVAJO NATION INN OFC. COMPLEX STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE P.O. BOX 1932 120 SOUTH FAIRFAX STREET WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 (602) 871-4167 (703) 684-6100

-69- CIVIL JURISIDICTION OF TRIBAL AND STATE COURTS FACULTYISTAFF ROSTER

JAY V. WHITE LINDA K. RIDGE ATTORNEY STAFF ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT OF THE 5341 BALLARD AVENUE NW NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS SEATTLE, WA 98107 1331 17TH STREET, SUITE 402 (206) 789-4483 DENVER, CO 80202 (303) 293-3063

JEANNE S. WHITEING DENISE KILBORN ATTORNEY AT LAW ADMINISTRATIVE ASS1 STANT WHITEING AND THOMPSON TEMPLE OF JUSTICE 1136 PEARL STREET, SUITE 203 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON BOULDER, CO 80302 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 (303 444-2549 (206) 357-2021 30 A. KENT DAVID L. WITHEY ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY LEGAL SERVICES OFFICER INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 1501 WEST WASHINGTON 1331 17TH STREET, SUITE 402 PHOENIX, AZ 85007 (602) 542-9325 DENVER, CO 80202 (303) 293-3063

ROGER L. WOLLMAN CHRISTINE V. ORTIZ JUDGE ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT OF THE 437 FEDERAL BUILDING NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS PIERRE, SD 57501 1331 17TH STREET, SUITE 402 (605) 224-7387 DENVER, CO 50202 (303) 293-3063

H. TED RUBIN SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 1331 17TH STREET, SUITE 402 DENVER, CO 80202 (303) 293-3063

-70-