Legals for Wednesday, March 16, 2022

PUBLIC NOTICE

Notice is hereby given by the undersigned Clerks of Dodson, Malta, Saco and Whitewater School Districts No. 2A-C, 14A, 12A + 12B, and 20D Phillips County, State of Montana that regular registration for the Annual School Election to be held on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2022, will close at 5:00 pm on Monday, April 4th, 2022.

NOTE: If you miss this regular registration deadline, you may still register for the election by showing up at the county election office before 12:00 PM (noon) the day before Election Day, Monday, May 2, 2022. All active and inactive electors of Dodson, Malta, Saco and Whitewater School Districts No. 2A-C, 14A, 12A + 12B, and 20D are entitled to vote at said election.

Districts No. 2A-C, 14A, 12A + 12B, and 20D will conduct a Mail Ballot Election:

Ballots will be automatically mailed to Active Electors only. If you are a registered voter and do not receive a ballot, contact the county election office to update your information as necessary and receive a ballot.

Persons who wish to register and who are not presently registered may do so by requesting a form for registration by mail or by appearing at the county election office. If you have moved, please update your registration information by filling out a new voter registration card and submitting it to the county election office. Late registration is only available through the county election office, and not the school district.

The county election office is located at:

Phillips County Courthouse

Lynnel LaBrie, Phillips County Election Administrator

PO Box 360

314 S 2nd Ave W

Malta, MT 59538

Dated this 8th day of March, 2022

Mary Nordland, Clerk Dodson School District

2A-C

Jane Knudsen, Clerk Malta School District 14A

Mandy Sunford, Clerk Saco School District 12A +

12B

Lynn Hill, Clerk Whitewater School District 20D

(Published by Phillips County News 3/16, 3/23, 3/30/2022 MNAXLP

------------------------

IN AND FOR THE CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, APPELLATE COURT, CROW TRIBE RESERVATION

POB 489, CROW AGENCY, MONTANA 59022

Steve Yapuncich, Legal Advocate

POB 305 Wyola, MT 59089

(406)679-5407

[email protected]

APPEAL OF LOWER COURT DECISION

in re: CV. CASE NO. 21-142

CHEYENNE SUDDENBRAVE, v. JACK OLD HORN,

Petitioner, Respondent.

NOW COMES Jack Old Horn, Respondent, through Steve Yapuncich, Legal Advocate of Record, praying the Appellate Court of the Crow Tribe of Indians to reverse and dismiss with prejudice the above cited and so-named Case for the following good cause. Prior to presenting this Appeal, Advocate reserves the right to amend instant Appeal due to DVD of Hearing held on April 13, 2021, at or about 11:00 a.m. and for Court to be noticed that said DVD is unreadable=displaying following messages on three (3) different DVD players at several locations: NOT FORMATTED; NO DATA; STOPPAGE. It did not seem mete to Advocate to supply Appellate Court with unreadable DVD. Advocate efiled Motion for usable DVD or transcribed record and entire record with extension of time of ten (10) days after delivery of record that is usable. Advocate is aware that technical glitches, unreliable software and other unforeseen events can and do affect DVD and/or recordings. Advocate has vigorously pursued Discovery from Court and, in good faith effort, obtained two (2) DVD players beside his own, used at various locations, with no positive results. Despite filing above-mentioned Motion for usable Discovery and Extension of Time, in abundance of caution, Advocate is filing this Appeal without complete record to supply the Appellate Court, in light that CLOC Rule 8. Transmission of Record mandates within thirty (30)-days the Appellant shall complete and turn over transcript or statement of proceedings. This in present case an impossibility as Record is flawed. As Advocate computes time, deadline is June 1st, 2021. In view that possibility of timeline is determined to end May 23, 2021, being moved to May 24, 2021, as May 23, 2021, falls on Sunday. CLOC is unclear in stating time-frame in its intent to compute days following Filing of Notice to Appeal. Advocate made decision to file Appeal without complete record, being record is not accessible. Advocate prays the Appellate Court to allow submission of record when available from Court and, if necessary in eyes of Advocate, to amend the Appeal. Advocate realizes that this is a departure from the norm but asks the Court to allow instant filing in interest of justice. Further, Advocate notices the Appellate Court that Respondent retained Advocate post-hearing and thus Advocate has no personal memory or notes from which to draw, relying entirely on Order of Crow Court which expounded on points of instant Appeal.

PRESENTATION OF POINTS OF APPEAL AND FOUNDATION

Basis for Appeal is found in Order granting Permanent Order of Protection in favor of Plaintiff by the honorable Chief Judge Dennis Bear Don't Walk. This was issued the 13th

day of April, 2021, with Plaintiff appearing telephonically and Respondent present in the Court room. Article 7 states that Temporary Order of Protection (ex-parte) was delivered in timely

fashion to BIA-OJS law enforcement on or about 11:00 a.m., March 30, 2021 for service upon Respondent and certificate of service for such.

Article 8 of states that "For unknown reasons...” service was never accomplished nor were any attempts to effect such service noted by the honorable Bear Don't Walk.

Article 9 states that only on April 13, 2021, did BIA-OJS attempt to serve Respondent at 10:45 a.m. without success. A family member at the residence of Plaintiff called Plaintiff and said the police were looking for him.

Article 10 states that Respondent drove himself to Court.

Article 11 states that BIA-OJS Law Enforcement Officer, Rose Morrison, served the Respondent copy of Temporary Order of Protection at 11:09 a.m. inside the Crow Tribal Courthouse.

Article 12 states Respondent did not request a continuance at any time.

Article 19 states the Respondent testified that there was never any abuse but he would

agree to Order of Protection by the Petitioner.

ARGUMENT

The flaws recorded by the Court are egregious and not correctable. Addressing each in order, the Court will see that the violation of CLOC and the actions of the Court

demonstrate irreparable harm to Respondent. Advocate does not contest the issuance of Temporary Order of Protection and delivery of such to Law Enforcement was lawful and correct. The error was no follow-up when Certificate of Service was never delivered, attempted fifteen (15) minutes prior to hearing and allowed into the Court record as successful service. It is the job of the Court to make sure Service of complaints and summons are accomplished. When lacking, Court should inform whomever is responsible for service that such is a lawful onus and it must be served upon parties. Non-service is not allowed under CLOC. Each Party must be served Complaint and Summons. The legal process is utterly flawed without proper service. CLOC Title 5, Rule 5 allows for publication if after careful search one or more Parties cannot be located for personal or certified mail service. It is not reasonable to expect any one, lay or legal professional, to be kept out of hearing(s). The only way for them to know is by service, accomplished in timely manner. Implantation of CLOC in instant case departs far from what is mandated in Title 5, Rules

4, 5, 6, and 7. Respondent is not a member of the Bar nor ever trained in legal practice. He could not either know or assert the following objections, to wit:

RULE 4.

(c.) true and complete conformed copy...shall be delivered to the (Respondent) along with the applicable civil summons. This was not accomplished.

(d.) requires personal service upon defendant and proof and certification of such service must be made promptly to the Court. Court had to be aware that service was not accomplished nor could be in timely fashion in order to allow Respondent sufficient time to indeed respond to complaint. The proof of service shall (emphasis added) be made part of the applicable case file. This could not occur as there was no proof of service. The file was incomplete. Service of complaint, summons and time of hearing is recorded by Court to be late beyond remedy having been accomplished after the hearing is begun and the Respondent is sitting in Courthouse. All timeliness for Respondent and right to respond pro se or seek and/or obtain legal representation is lost forever—if the hearing continues. Especially in light of no legal representation or legal background. Respondent was caught off-guard, surprised and stunned by the nature of accusations contained within said complaint. Even a seasoned attorney would be caught off-guard, surprised and stunned upon being served any complaint after entering Courthouse for hearing he/she had heard through the grapevine was being held and his/her presence was required... in ten (10) minutes. Hearing must be continued sua sponte to protect rights of Respondent. Crow Constitution (CC) and ICRA of 1968 lay foundation of CLOC by acknowledging rights of all parties in legal process. (CC Article II, Sec. ICRA of 1968 (25 U.S.C. ss1302 No.8)). The reality is that the Respondent lives on River Road, a short distance from BIA-OJS headquarters and being Respondent is well-known within the Crow Community. Respondent lives in a house, separated from neighbors by half-mile +or-, on frontage road and is employed by the Crow Tribe, one mile +or-, from BIA-OJS Law Enforcement Headquarters in situ Crow Agency, Montana. There is no obstacle to personal service within time-frame between receiving Complaint and Summons on March 30, 2021, and date of hearing, April 13, 2021, contained within Summons.

Rule 5.

All responses, motions or other filings must be served upon opposing party not less that five (5) days prior to hearing movant's demand. Manner of service shall be certified mail or personal delivery. Without being served, Respondent lost the right to file as neither could he prepare an adequate answer but did not even know he was party to suit and therefore it was impossible for him to respond. No one could respond. Onus was on Court to continue Temporary Order of Protection and re-set Hearing, sua sponte.

Rule 5A.

Throughout this statute, CLOC outlines necessity, manner and certification of service which, in instant case, was never accomplished and such omission of service was noted by the Court in Final Order. Prior to Hearing, such is to be made part of Court record. Court had to be aware of lack of integral part of process. This complete failure to serve cannot be remedied.

RULE 6.

All rights contained within RULE 6 were lost to Respondent by lack of service and that loss of rights was ignored by Court, which is enjoined to interpret with liberality and in the interest of justice all filings of any and all parties appearing pro se. Instant case is that no filings were made and all opportunity to make such were lost. Asserting that pro se Respondent can knowingly waive rights and understand results of loss of rights would mean that Court assumes pro se party is indeed competent in legal matters and comfortable in legal proceedings which, pro se by its very nature asserts the opposite. The Court has responsibility to protect pro se parties-on both sides of the Courtroom. Carefully protecting rights of pro se Plaintiff and not protecting rights of pro se Respondent shows either a bias for Plaintiff or a negligence of responsibility to Respondent. (Puckett v, Cox (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA and Conley v. Gibson. 355 U.S. 41 at 48(1957) rejecting approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel (pro se) may be decisive to the outcome.) Misstep, the one misstep instant, is that Respondent did

not have either the legal savvy or the emotional balance due to shock of being suddenly thrust into Court with allegations of the most serious nature to move for Dismissal on bases of non-service or at least move for Continuance to properly prepare or obtain legal 9 representation. (Rule 8(f) FRCP all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.) Denial of allegations under oath must, instant case, cause Court to re-set Hearing, as lack of service rendered preparation impossible. Summation of case law and FRCP is that anyone appearing or filing pro se is understood to be in need of a protective attitude and actions by the Court—all parties appearing as such. Respondent denied allegations without having time to summon witnesses, present evidence, or obtain legal counsel. Respondent was denied all but this denial in re to legal remedy or defense by failure of service altogether. Court had legal responsibility to allow time whether Respondent moved for continuance or not. This failure to provide substantial justice is not remediable. Time element within RULE 6 is fifteen (15) days of service of process which was, in instant case, lost to Respondent. There was no time granted to Respondent to respond, having been served in the Courthouse nine (9) minutes after onset of hearing. This cannot be remedied.

Refutation, denial, or even any answer at all was rendered impossible by Court continuing on with hearing. Respondent, whether pro se or attorney, would be at such a loss when confronted with any complaint on such notice as not be able to respond intelligently or thoroughly. No possibility of investigation or calling of witness or research or any legal action was available to Respondent. This is not remediable. As all unrefuted allegations are accepted by the Court so without time to refute allegations, Respondent lost basic right to trial, presenting witnesses, evidence or even to intelligently confront witnesses against him. Legally trained/experienced representative would have filed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice as service was not accomplished in pre-trial procedural motions allowed under CLOC and would have been correct, resulting in dismissal of complaint. Court notes that Respondent testified there was never any abuse but that he would agree to Order requested. Again, in a stunned state of mind for 1) having suddenly been told to call court; 2) being informed of hearing in ten (10) minutes; 3) being served while sitting in Court; 4) reading such serious and terrible allegations of which Respondent was entirely unaware were being brought to the Bench, all he could do was deny. Agreement to the Order was reflexive given Crow Culture Custom of not arguing in re to family matters and avoidance interpersonal relations of daughter-in-law and father-in-law. With representation Respondent would have had avenue to disagree, go to trial, overcome over come his lifetime, cultural reluctance to defend himself or speak, argue, or disagree with daughter-in-law. Petitioner in instant case, CV. 21-142 is daughter-in-law (spouses, common law partners and/or significant others of children, grandchildren and so on are considered daughters-in-law and/or sons-in-law). Confronting Ms. SuddenBrave is not culturally acceptable within Crow Culture. Representation could confront, cross-examine, and impeach or discredit witness or object to hearsay contained in original petition without broaching Cultural restraints and norms. Crow (Apsaalooke) Culture and Custom is Oral Tradition. The teachings above are common to every family, clan and the entire Tribe. Respondent was raised in Traditional Home, with Apsaalooke as his first and only language. His education is limited to Junior in High School. English is his second language.

This further complicates his understanding of proceedings as legalese is even more foreign to Respondent that English. Without time to prepare, without time to retain legal representation, Respondent is at great disadvantage in any court proceeding. The failure to serve him exacerbates this legal disability. Lack of Court to assume its duty of substantial justice and liberality instant case of pro se renders hearing continuing as being unduly onerous to Respondent and leaves him without rights guaranteed in CC, CLOC and ICRA of 1968. This is not remediable. Respondent had no legal, not even an inkling, of the results of this action would mean to his relationships with his grandchildren, with his family, and/or with society in general affecting his standing as an Elder of the Crow Tribe and patriarch of his family. Respondent did not know he would be restrained from ever seeing such a wide swath of his relatives whom he loves and cherishes and who have expressed, both verbally and by action, the same feelings for him.

WHEREFORE, Advocate respectfully petitions the Crow Appellate Court to vacate Final Order and Dismiss with Prejudice CV. 21-142 for good cause showing above and in the interest of justice. The hearing was not held under CLOC as service was not accomplished; substantial justice was denied by Court not re-setting hearing to give Respondent, layman appearing pro se without knowledge of why he was there until nine (9) minutes after starting time of hearing; Respondent agreed to petition only out of Cultural dictates and with no knowledge of the ramifications of Order of Protection in shock at accusations false and unproven, without benefit of counsel or protections that are applicable to pro se party. The lack of protection by Crow Court is shocking to the conscience. Respondent was not even given time enough to digest contents of Petition much less proceed in any manner of rational defense. This cannot be corrected de novo. The Decision of Crow Court in CV. 21 142 must be vacated and Dismissed with Prejudice. Attached and made a part hereof: 1) Final Order CV.21-142; 2) Original Petition; 3) Complete filing of Motion for Discovery and Extension of Time.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of May, 2021, by Steve Yapuncich, Advocate

(Published by Phillips County News 2/16, 3/2, 3/16/2022) MNAXLP