Fight For Justice On the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Reservation |
Page 2
|
On November 27, 1995, defendant
Bolton declined to exercise the power of review. See Attachment G to the
Complaint. As grounds, defendant- Bolton declared the affected persons to
have been "unconstitutionally enrolled." Furthermore, she stated,
the resolution stripping members of the vote was a "TEMPORARY solution,"
and was deemed to be a "health, security and general
The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Area Director, who affirmed
the Superintendent's decision on April 18, 1996. The Area Director based
his decision on the fact that the Tribal Council had not submitted the resolutions,
the fact that the Tribe had previously adopted an ordinance, and the claim
not to find any basis for review. See Attachment H to the complaint.
The plaintiffs appealed the Area Director's decision to the Interior Board
of Indian Appeals (hereafter "Board"). On July 19, 1996 the Board
dismissed the appeal, without hearing on the merits, for lack of standing.
See Order Docketing and Dismissing Appeal, No. IBIA 96-73-A, Attachment
I to the Complaint.
On November 19, 1996 the Plaintiffs filed this Complaint, challenging the
refusal of Bureau officials, who have been delegated the responsibilities
of review, to exercise the review authority respecting Resolutions 467 and
501.
During the proceedings in this case the defendants twice represented that
they would be filing a Motion to Dismiss challenging the subject matter
jurisdiction of this Court. On September 3, 1997 they represented that they
would be filing such motion by September 15th. When that deadline passed
they renewed their representation in December and received an extension.
Defendants have now filed their Motion and supporting Memorandum.3 The Motion alleges three grounds for dismissal: (1) the failure
to state a claim; (2) the failure to exhaust tribal remedies; and (3) the
failure to join an indispensable party. In the Motion itself the defendants
state that failure to exhaust tribal remedies is jurisdictional: "10.
Plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because
plaintiffs failed to exhaust their tribal remedies." In the supporting
Memorandum the defendants nowhere repeat or argue for that contention.
Further are as stated in the Argument below.
To
read a brief summary of FFJ and it's begining read Tina Lam's Detorit
Free Press article
|
|||||