Michael A. Langley

There are many people who have been posting about the Tumulth Family court decision. Since many of these statements are inaccurate, I have posted the decision here. If you don’t want to read the whole ruling, I would suggest that you start at page 19 of the opinion. However, I encourage folks to read everything including the footnotes if you want a full understanding. Not sure how each device works, so you may have to hover over and then click the link.

alexander-v-confederated-tribes-of-grand-ronde-opinion

What you will discover is that the Tribal Appellate Court specifically noted that the Tribe did not meet the burden of proof for disenrollment. Enrollment requirements are much more defined now, however in 1986 it was a period of time when we were gathering as many people back as we could. Our elders on the Enrollment Committee of that time (and thus that Tribal Council approved since it to went forward), decided that a Treaty qualified as “any roll or record” which was how enrollment requirements were written at the time. There wasn’t much if any evidence presented to dispute this other than the 1999 Amendment. One of the reasons the early Enrollment Committee found compelling most certainly was the connection to the Columbia River. This is also noted in the ruling. We have often used this family’s connection and enrollment in our Tribe in other court cases and public relations.

The Appellate Court lays out that the case could have been remanded back to the Enrollment staff and then the Enrollment Board/Committee requiring additional proof of error in disenrollment since what was presented was not sufficient. However, they chose not to do that. They chose to decide the case using laches and estoppel which is more than “too much time has passed”. Never does it say that they were enrolled in error and in fact takes great care to use the word “alleged” error.

Also, pay attention to the final paragraph on page 22. “This consolidated appeal is REMANDED to the Trial Court to grant the administrative appeals in Trial Court cases C-14-022 to C-14-088 and is then REMANDED to the Enrollment Committee/Board for its decisions disenrolling these persons to be dismissed with prejudice in favor of the Petitioners/Appellants.”  (Italics added). The italicized words are important but those case numbers are significant. We will be revisiting these later in another post to come.

If you read these pages including the last page, what does with prejudice mean in legal terms? What is the difference between dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. Those are the formal legal terms for the different ways cases get dismissed. These terms in common usage sounds like it got dismissed because of a judge’s racism or something like that. Of course that isn’t what these terms are referring to.

In the formal legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court.

A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It’s not dismissed forever. The person whose case it is can try again.

I believe in judicial review. It is the foundation of the United States Constitution and I am proud that we have it embedded within our own legal system as an exercise of our sovereignty. This family is protected from future legal proceedings as a result of the ruling. However, they have continued to be tried publicly and informally by some members.

These folks were provisionally disenrolled pending the outcome of their appeal. They were not to be officially disenrolled until the full judicial review was completed. Prior to the disenrollment proceedings they were Grand Ronde members since 1986. As we all know, prior to 1999 all Indian blood was considered Grand Ronde blood. To remove this blood quantum designation prior to the case being settled or even after it is settled is in effect a new trial on these people. I will also note there is no provision for classes of members in our Tribal Constitution except for those we give honorary adoption which does not carry benefits.

There are some who want to continue this dispute. We as a people must move on from this episode in our Tribal history. The case is settled.