It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Its not me. Or at least its not anything I have ever been. I sense that in a way she is in the sky but not seen, like the blue rock was before it shined. I expect that there will be something else worth looking up at before Thanksgiving.
Would you believe me if I said there just might be a new green star watching over you and your family at dinner in the near future?
.....
www.freedomcrowsnest.org...
.....the Third District’s interpretation of the Florida Constitution’s
provision for exclusive jurisdiction in this case cannot be squared with this Court’s
interpretation of the Florida Statutes’ provisions for civil jurisdiction on formal Indian
reservations.
Florida Statute Section 285.16, which applies to formal Indian reservations,
provides:
(1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction...over civil causes
of actions between Indians or to which Indians or other persons are
parties residing within Indian reservations.
(2) The civil and criminal laws of Florida shall obtain on all Indian
reservations in this State.
These provisions have not been interpreted as conferring jurisdiction as broadly
as the plain language of the statutes provide. To the contrary, principles of Indian
sovereignty preclude such sweeping statutory interpretation and application.
For example, as the District Court opinion holds, Section 26.012(2)(b), Florida
Statutes, and Article V, Section 20, Florida Constitution, provide for the exclusive
jurisdiction of the circuit court in estate matters. However, there is not a single
8
reported Florida case the undersigned has found involving inheritance disputes or
domestic relations issues between formal reservation Indians.
Article V, Section 20 also provides for the exclusive original jurisdiction of
circuit courts in “actions at law not cognizable in county courts” and in matters
“involving the legality of any tax assessment.” However, in Houghtaling v. Seminole
Tribe of Florida, 611 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1993), this Court noted that Section 285.16
does not waive the tribe’s sovereign immunity and that the circuit court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction in cases involving the taxation of Indian ventures on Indian land.
This Court has recognized that Congress’ granting of civil jurisdiction to the
states was never intended to usurp tribal government:
Pub. L. [83-]280 was only one of many types of assimilationist legislation
under active consideration in 1953. And nothing in its legislative history
remotely suggests that Congress meant the Act’s extension of civil
jurisdiction to the States should result in the undermining or destruction
of such tribal governments as did exist and a conversion of the affected
tribes into little more than “private, voluntary organizations,”- - a possible
result if tribal governments and reservation Indians were subordinated to
the full panoply of civil regulatory powers, including taxation, of state and
local governments...
Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 611 So.2d 1235, 1238-39 (Fla. 1993), citing,
Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 426 U.S. 373, 387-388 (1976)(holding that laws
passed for the benefit of Indian tribes are to be liberally construed, with doubtful
expressions resolved in favor of the Indians).
......
www.floridasupremecourt.org...