|
Native
American Press/Ojibwe
News
Armstrong and Lawrence ask federal court to lift stay
based on recent Supreme Court decision
By Clara NiiSka - August 17, 2001
Plaintiffs Jeff Armstrong and William J. Lawrence filed
a letter on August 17 in U.S. District Court, requesting that the
federal court lift its stay and reassert federal jurisdiction, since
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nevada v. Hicks that tribal courts do
not have jurisdiction over civil rights lawsuits. The August 17 letter
is the latest step in the plaintiff’s long legal journey.
The legal travails of Press/ON reporter Jeff Armstrong
and his publisher William Lawrence began at an October 22, 1997 meeting
of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s Tribal Executive Committee (TEC)
meeting, held at the Grand Casino Mille Lacs Hotel, located on the
Mille Lacs Indian reservation. During the fall of 1997, the TEC was
considering a controversial Mille Lacs treaty-rights settlement, and
Lawrence had assigned Armstrong to cover the meeting for Press/ON.
Before the October 1997 meeting began, however, TEC
president Norm Deschampe ordered Armstrong removed from the meeting.
Armstrong was arrested by Mille Lacs tribal police officer Marc
Garbinger, escorted out of the meeting room, taken to the hotel lobby
where he was publicly handcuffed, and then, still in handcuffs, driven
by Garbinger “in a tribal police vehicle off of trust land and taken to
the detention facility in Milaca which is thirty-four (34) miles away
from the casino.” Garbinger reportedly told state law enforcement
personnel to detain Armstrong for several hours—until the TEC meeting
was scheduled to adjourn.
Armstrong was charged with criminal trespass under state
law, held in the Milaca jail for almost four hours, without even being
allowed to make a telephone call. When Armstrong was released at about
2:00 in the afternoon, he had to hitchhike the thirty-four miles back
to where he was arrested in Onamia. Armstrong was subsequently
acquitted of the state trespassing charges.
On December 16, 1998, Armstrong and Lawrence sued in
federal court for violations of Armstrong’s civil rights “secured to
him under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution,” and for the public
humiliation—“defamation”—suffered by Armstrong as he was escorted from
the meeting by police and handcuffed in the hotel lobby.
Magistrate Judge Raymond Erickson, presiding over the
federal district court’s Civil Case No. 98-2658 in Duluth, granted the
Mille Lacs Band’s motion to stay the federal court proceedings—and
ordered that the “Mille Lacs Band Tribal Court [be allowed] to
determine whether or not it had jurisdiction”—superseding federal
jurisdiction—to adjudicate the civil rights and defamation case against
the Mille Lacs Band in the Mille Lacs Band’s tribal court.
On May 24, 2001, plaintiffs Jeff Armstrong and William
J. Lawrence appeared in Mille Lacs tribal court as ordered by federal
Judge Erickson. Both plaintiffs filed motions to dismiss the case from
Mille Lacs tribal court for lack of jurisdiction, and to return the
legal proceedings to the federal court where the lawsuit was originally
filled.
Lawrence’s “Plaintiff William J. Lawrence’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction” and accompanying memorandum brief was
published on June 29, and Armstrong’s “Motion by Plaintiff Armstrong
for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction” was published on July 20.
The Mille Lacs Band’s “Memorandum in response to
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss …” was published by Press/ON on August 3,
and Armstrong’s “Plaintiff’s reply to defendants’ response to Motion of
May 24” was published last week, on August 10. This week, Lawrence’s
Reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss Mille Lacs tribal court
action and Armstrong and Lawrence’s letter to Federal Magistrate Judge
Erickson seeking to lift the federal court stay are published in this
week’s edition of Press/ON, on page 8.
According to Armstrong and Lawrence, the Mille Lacs
tribal court does not have jurisdiction on the grounds of Nevada v.
Hicks, in which an “unequivocal majority” of the U.S. Supreme made it
clear that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over civil rights
suits brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983—and that the tribal court is
illegal, since it is not authorized by the MCT Constitution.
|