“Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968”
U.S. Government. The tribe has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari review.__________
September 1985: Suit was filed in the federal district court against the Department of the Interior on behalf of three Indians seeking termination of Federal funds to the Red Lake court until court reforms are achieved. The suit was dismissed on the the grounds that the federal court does not have the authority under the Indian Civil Rights Act in light of the Martinez decision.
November 1985: The BIA issued a directive requiring the court to allow retained counsel into court.
 United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. den., 99 L.Ed. 2d 270 (1988). See Exhibit 18, Washington, D.C. Hearing, supra ote 4, at 336, for the petition for certiorari.
 Cook v. Moran, CIV No. 6-85-1513 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 1986), reprinted as Exhibit 5, Washington, D.C. Hearing, supranote 4, at 197.
 Memorandum to all area directors from Hazel Elbert, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior (Nov. 12, 1985), reprinted in the Portland Hearing, supranote 25, Exhibit 4, at 128-29. The right to counsel became an issue at Red Lake, see Memorandum to Earl Barlow, Area Director, from Red Lake Chairman Roger Jourdain, (Nov. 23, 1985), id., at 133-34, and Mr. Barlow's resposne, id. at 135-38. Specifically, Mr. Barlow refers to the intention of one attorney, Richard Meshbesher, to appear on behalf of criminal defendants:
Next, I am also aware that the Red Lake Band has issued an order that Mr. Meshbesher be removed from the Reservation by Law Enforcement Services personnel. Bureau personnel are hereby