attorneys for duchesne county - turtle talk · 2015-01-26 · duchesne county, a body politic and...

Stephen D. Foote (#8945)

Duchesne County Attorney

Marea A. Doherty (#7379)

Deputy Duchesne County Attorney

P.O. Box 346

Duchesne, Utah 84021

Tel: (435) 738-1144

Fax: (435) 738-1221

[email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Duchesne County

Jesse C. Trentadue (#4961)

Carl F. Huefner (#1566)

Noah M. Hoagland (#11400)

Britton R. Butterfield (#13158)

SUITTER AXLAND, PLLC

8 East Broadway, Suite 200

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Tel: (801) 532-7300

Fax: (801) 532-7355

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH

and OURAY RESERVATION, UTAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF UTAH, DUCHESNE

COUNTY, a political subdivision of the

State of Utah, ROOSEVELT CITY, a

municipal Corporation, DUCHESNE CITY,

a municipal Corporation, MYTON, a

municipal corporation, and UINTAH

COUNTY, a political subdivision of the

State of Utah,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

DUCHESNE COUNTY’S

ANSWER, COUNTER-CLAIM

and

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Civil No. 2:75-cv-00408

and

2:13-cv-00276-BSJ

Judge Bruce S. Jenkins

Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

Case 2:75-cv-00408-BSJ Document 238 Filed 06/07/13 of 56

mailto:[email protected]






DUCHESNE COUNTY, a body politic and

political subdivision of the State of Utah, in

its individual capacity and as parens patriae

and/or in jus tertii,

Counter-Claim and

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH

and OURAY RESERVATION, UTAH, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe;

BUSINESS COMMITTEE FOR THE UTE

INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH and

OURAY RESERVATION; GORDON

HOWELL, Chairman of the Ute Tribal

Business Committee, in his individual

capacity; RONALD J. WOPSOCK, Vice-

Chairman of the Ute Tribal Business

Committee, in his individual capacity; JANE

DOE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business

Committee, in her individual capacity;

JOHN DOE, Member of the Ute Tribal

Business Committee, in his individual

capacity; JOHN DOE TWO, Member of the

Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his

individual capacity; and JOHN DOE

THREE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business

Committee, in his individual capacity,

Counter-Claim and

Third-Party Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

2


Defendant Duchesne County, Utah (“Duchesne County”) answers the

allegations of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation (“Ute

Tribe”). However, unless specifically admitted herein below, the allegations

contained in the Ute Tribe’s Complaint are expressly denied.

RESPONSE TO NATURE OF PROCEEDING

1. Regarding Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Duchesne County admits

that the Ute Tribe has filed this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Duchesne County further alleges that by this action the Ute Tribe is improperly

and unlawfully attempting to disrupt, obstruct and/or otherwise hinder Duchesne

County’s civil regulatory authority and/or criminal jurisdiction within the exterior

boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, which has since been

disestablished and/or diminished ( the “former Reservation”). Duchesne County,

however, denies the remaining factual and legal allegations of Paragraph 1.

RESPONSE TO JURISDICTION and VENUE


that the Ute Tribe has filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking

relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and that a controversy exists between

Duchesne County and the Ute Tribe. Duchesne County denies the remaining

3


factual and legal allegations of Paragraph 2. Additionally, Duchesne County

denies that there is a controversy that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States” and asserts that the matter at issue here is one of

State court jurisdiction governed by State law in accordance with the Tenth

Amendment.


that the Ute Tribe is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to the former

Reservation. Duchesne County denies the remaining factual and legal allegations

of Paragraph 3. In particular, Duchesne County denies that this Court is the proper

venue for many of the issues raised in the Complaint about the jurisdiction of the

courts of the State of Utah. Duchesne County affirmatively asserts that the courts

of the State of Utah should determine their own jurisdiction.

RESPONSE TO PARTIES

4. Duchesne County admits that the Ute Tribe is a federally recognized

Indian Tribe. Duchesne County , however, denies the remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Duchesne County admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the

Complaint.

4



Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.

RESPONSE TO FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS

12. Duchesne County denies the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the

Complaint.


the former Reservation was created by the United States government in the mid- to

late 1800s. Duchesne County further alleges that the former Reservation has been

5


disestablished and/or diminished, which is a fact that even the Ute Tribe has

admitted. That admission occurred as part of the stipulated facts in the “Pre-Trial

Order” entered in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, et. al., wherein the Ute Tribe1

agreed that “Lands within the original Uintah Valley Reservation that were

entered and settled under federal homestead, cash entry and townsite laws are not

‘Indian Country, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151.” Duchesne County2

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 because it lacks sufficient

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of certain

allegations and/or because it has knowledge that certain allegations are incorrect.


the former Reservation was created by the United States government in the late

1800s. Duchesne County denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14

because it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

or falsity regarding certain allegations and/or because it has knowledge that

certain allegations are incorrect.

2:75CV408.1

Id. Doc. 35, ¶ L, p. 13.2

6



Complaint.


that the status of the former Reservation, including whether or not the former

Reservation has been diminished or disestablished, has been the subject of

litigation in state and federal courts. Duchesne County further admits that it and

the Ute Tribe have been parties to some of that litigation, including litigation filed

in this Court by the Ute Tribe in 1975, and otherwise known as Ute Indian Tribe v.

State of Utah, et. al. Duchesne County denies the remaining allegations of3

Paragraph 16.


the litigation instituted by the Ute Tribe in 1975 resulted in multiple orders and

decisions by trial and appellate courts. Duchesne County further alleges that the

1975 suit was settled as the result of a Judgment by Consent and not by the

decision of any Court. Duchesne County denies the remaining allegations of

Paragraph 17.

2:75CV408. 3

7



the litigation instituted by the Ute Tribe in 1975 concerned, in part, the

Uncompahgre Reservation, and that both trial courts and appellate courts

addressed issues regarding the Uncompahgre Reservation. Duchesne County

further alleges that the 1975 suit was settled as the result of a Judgment by

Consent and not by the decision of any Court. Duchesne County denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 18.


the litigation instituted by the Ute Tribe in 1975 concerned, in part, the Uintah

Valley Reservation, and that both trial courts and appellate courts addressed issues

regarding the Uintah Valley Reservation. Duchesne County further alleges that

the 1975 suit was settled as the result of a Judgment by Consent and not by the


Paragraph 19.


that this Court entered an Order dated March 28, 2000, and asserts that the March

28, 2000 Order speaks for itself. Duchesne County asserts that Paragraph 20 of

the Complaint is not a fair characterization of either the terms or effect of the

8


March 28, 2000 Order, which was a Judgment by Consent. Duchesne County

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20.


Complaint.


that its law enforcement officers enforce the law while patrolling public roads,

rights of way, and non-tribal lands within the former Reservation. Duchesne

County denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


that certain decisions and findings resulting from the Ute Tribe's 1975 litigation

9


are unsound, as the United States Supreme Court, Utah Supreme Court, and Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals have stated. Duchesne County further alleges that the

1975 suit was settled as the result of a Judgment by Consent and not by the


Paragraph 27.


the Ute Tribe has sent it letters regarding Duchesne County's lawful patrolling of

public roads and rights of way and non-tribal lands within the former Reservation.

Duchesne County asserts that its actions fall within its lawful authority, and are

necessary to protect the peace and enforce the laws. Duchesne County denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 28.


that it has brought criminal actions in the state courts of Utah against those who it

believes violated the law and over whom the State courts have jurisdiction.

Duchesne County denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29.


that individuals who have violated the law, including those listed in Paragraph 30,

10


have been charged and prosecuted by the Duchesne County for those crimes.

Duchesne County denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30.

31. Regarding Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, given that the allegations

concern matters that occurred in another county, Duchesne County lacks sufficient

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained therein

and, therefore, denies the same.













11







Complaint.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’s requested relief violates the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2283 and the Tenth Amendment.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe's claims are barred or otherwise limited by the Governmental

Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code §§ 63G-7-101 et seq., including but not limited

to Utah Code §§ 63G-7-201, 63G-7-202, 63G-7-301(5), 63G-7-401, 63G-7-402,

63G-7-501, 63G-7-601, 63G-7-603, 63G-7-604 and 63G-7-702 (2008). The Ute

Tribe’s claims are also barred for failure to strictly comply with the Notice

12


requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah contained in Utah Code

§§ 63G-7-401 and 63G-7-402 (2008).

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’s claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; by

the doctrine of governmental immunity including the immunity granted to

Duchesne County under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code §§

63G-7-101 et seq.; and by the doctrines of res judicata, and/or collateral estoppel.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’s claims and requested relief are barred by the doctrine of

comity.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’s claims and requested relief are barred by the doctrines of

waiver, laches, acquiescence, and/or ratification.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’s claims and requested relief are barred by the doctrines of

estoppel and unclean hands.

13


EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe’ is not entitled to injunctive relief because it has an adequate

remedy at law.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The injunctive and other relief being sought by the Ute Tribe violates the Tenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The injunctive and other relief being sought by the Ute Tribe is barred on the

basis of a lack of good faith.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

In so far as they are based in whole or in part upon the settlement concluded in

2:75CV408, the Ute Tribe’s claims are barred by a failure of consideration.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Ute Tribe lacks standing and/or is otherwise not the real party in interest.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Duchesne County reserves the right to amend its Answer if, during the process

of discovery, such discovery establishes a basis for additional Affirmative Defenses.

14


PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Duchesne County respectfully prays that the Ute Tribe’s

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety; that Duchesne County be

awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to date in defending this

action; and that Duchesne County have such other and further relief as this Court

deems just and proper.

DUCHESNE COUNTY’S COUNTER-CLAIM and THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Duchesne County, Utah (“Duchesne County”) by way of

Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint against the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah

and Ouray Reservation (“Ute Tribe”); the Business Committee for the Ute Indian

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (“Business Committee”); Gordon Howell,

Chairman of the Business Committee; Ronald J. Wopsock, Vice-Chairman of the

Business Committee; Jane Doe, member of the Business Committee; John Doe,

member of the Business Committee; John Doe Two, member of the Business

Committee; and John Doe Three, member of the Business Committee.

15


NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

1. With this Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint Duchesne County,

seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Ute Tribe arising out of the Ute

Tribe’s interference with Duchesne County’s civil regulatory authority and/or

criminal jurisdiction within the original boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray

Reservation, which has since been disestablished and/or diminished (the “former

Reservation”) and the Ute Tribe’s interference with the constitutional rights of the

citizens and inhabitants of Duchesne County, including, but not limited:

a. The Ute Tribe’s improper exercise of civil and regulatory

authority over all persons, lands and/or matters within the former Reservation in

violation of Federal law and the Ute Tribe’s prior disclaimer and transfer of that

authority to the State of Utah and Duchesne County;

b. The Ute Tribe’s funding and/or facilitating the bringing of sham

and baseless lawsuits by members of the Ute Tribe against Duchesne County officials

in the United States District Court and/or Ute Tribal Court so as to otherwise hinder

or obstruct justice and/or interfere with Duchesne County’s governmental authority

within or without the former Reservation, and/or to deprive citizens and/or

inhabitants of Duchesne County of their constitutional rights;

16


c. The Ute Tribe’s unlawful exercise of criminal, civil, and

regulatory jurisdiction over non-members and non-tribal lands in violation of the law

and applicable agreements, including obstructing Duchesne County’s law

enforcement efforts within or without the former Reservation;

d. The Ute Tribe’s closing of Federal, State and Duchesne

County roads and rights-of-way located within the former Reservation to Duchesne

County personnel and non-members of the Ute Tribe;

e. The Ute Tribe’s illegal and unconstitutional assertion of criminal

and civil jurisdiction over all persons and lands within or without the former

Reservation such as closing public roads and rights-of-ways within the former

Reservation to non-members, having armed employees of the Ute Tribe stop and

search non-members of the Ute Tribe traveling on public roads and rights-of-way

within or without the former Reservation, and asserting jurisdiction over all non-

member children and their parent or custodians who happen to reside within the

former Reservation; and

f. Engaging in a pattern of racketeering and extortion through the

enforcement of the Ute Tribal Employment Rights Office Ordinance (“UTERO

Ordinance”) by way of threats against and/or the demand for the payment of bribes

17


from non-members of the Ute Tribe in order for those non-members of the Ute Tribe

to directly engage in interstate commerce or business within the former Reservation,

or to indirectly engage in interstate commerce or business within the former

Reservation by doing business with persons who are themselves engaged in interstate

commerce or doing business within the former Reservation.

2. Duchesne County seeks this relief on behalf of itself and on behalf of its

citizens and/or inhabitants as parens patriae. Duchesne County is also proceeding in

jus tertii because it has a duty to insure and protect the health, security, safety, welfare

and economic well-being of its citizens and those who are otherwise present within

Duchesne County, including the protection of their fundamental rights such as, but

not limited, to the right to travel.

3. Duchesne County is doing so because its interests and rights in the

matters alleged herein are congruent with those of its citizens and/or inhabitants.

Duchesne County is also doing so because the actions of the Ute Tribe and other

Counter-Claim and Third-Party Defendants endanger the health, security, safety,

welfare and economic well-being of Duchesne County as well as the health, security,

safety, welfare and economic well-being of the citizens and/or inhabitants of

Duchesne County.

18


4. Duchesne County is doing so, too, because its citizens and inhabitants

whose rights are being violated are often unknown to Duchesne County and/or

because the citizens and inhabitants of Duchesne County whose rights are being

violated are hindered in personally pursuing the vindication of their rights because of

the fear of retaliation from the Ute Tribe. For example, those persons who succumb

to the Ute Tribe’s extortion by payment of bribes in order to continue to do business

within or without the former Reservation and to exclude their competitors for that

same business opportunity are not going to complain of this practice for fear of

retaliation from the Ute Tribe. Conversely, those businesses who succumb to the

racketeering and extortion of Ute Tribal officials, obtain a substantial economic

advantage over their competitors who are not only shut out or foreclosed from

engaging in business activities within or without of the former Reservation, but have

no knowledge of the reasons therefore so as to challenge the illegal boycott.

5. Similarly, when public roads and rights-of-way within the former

Reservation are closed to non-members by the Ute Tribe, the constitutional rights of

countless unknown citizens and inhabitants of Duchesne County are being violated

and many of those citizens and inhabitants, thinking that those closed roads and

rights-of-way are not public, turn away not realizing that their fundamental right to

19


travel has been violated. Neither do they report those road closures to Duchesne

County.

PARTIES

6. Duchesne County is a body politic and a political subdivision of the

State of Utah. Duchesne County is bringing this action both in its individual capacity

and as parens patriae and in jus tertii on behalf of the citizens and/or inhabitants of

Duchesne County.

7. The Ute Tribe is a federally recognized American Indian tribe

headquartered at Fort Duchesne, Utah.

8. The Business Committee is the governing body of the Ute Tribe.

Duchesne County seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief against the Business

Committee.

9. Gordon Howell is the Chairman of the Business Committee. The

actions of the Ute Tribe complained of herein were instituted, caused , implemented

and/or continued by Gordon Howell. Gordon Howell is also a member of the Ute

Tribe, and an “Indian” as defined by federal law.

10. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, Gordon Howell

was acting and/or continues to act outside of and beyond the scope of his authority as

20


Chairman of the Business Committee. Gordon Howell is being sued solely in his

individual capacity.

11. Ronald J. Wopsock is Vice-Chairman of the Business Committee. The

actions of the Ute Tribe complained of herein were instituted, caused , implemented

and/or continued by Ronald J. Wopsock. Ronald J. Wopsock is also a member of the

Ute Tribe, and an “Indian” as defined by federal law.

12. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, Ronald J.

Wopsock was acting and/or continues to act outside of and beyond the scope of his

authority as Vice-Chairman of the Business Committee. Ronald J. Wopsock is being

sued solely in his individual capacity.

13. Jane Doe is a member of the Business Committee. The actions of the

Ute Tribe complained of herein were instituted, caused, implemented and/or

continued by Jane Doe. Jane Doe is also a member of the Ute Tribe, and an “Indian”

as defined by federal law.

14. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, Jane Doe was

acting and/or continues to act outside of and beyond the scope of her authority as a

member of the Business Committee. Jane Doe is being sued solely in her individual

capacity.

21


15. John Doe is a member of the Business Committee. The actions of the

Ute Tribe complained of herein were instituted, caused , implemented and/or

continued by John Doe. John Doe is also a member of the Ute Tribe, and an “Indian”

as defined by federal law.

16. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, John Doe was

acting and/or continues to act outside of and beyond the scope of his authority as a

member of the Business Committee. John Doe is being sued solely in his individual

capacity.

17. John Doe Two is a member of the Business Committee. The actions of

the Ute Tribe complained of herein were instituted, caused , implemented and/or

continued by John Doe Two. John Doe Two is also a member of the Ute Tribe, and

an “Indian” as defined by federal law.

18. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, John Doe Two


a member of the Business Committee. John Doe Two is being sued solely in his


19. John Doe Three is a member of the Business Committee. The actions of

the Ute Tribe complained of herein were instituted, caused , implemented and/or

22


continued by John Doe Three. John Doe Three is also a member of the Ute Tribe, and

an “Indian” as defined by federal law.

20. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, John Doe Three


a member of the Business Committee. John Doe Three is being sued solely in his


21. Hereinafter, the Ute Tribe, Business Committee, Gordon Howell,

Ronald J. Wopsock, Jane Doe, John Doe, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three will be

collectively referred to as “Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The remedies, and

relief sought herein by Duchesne County are authorized under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and

2202.

23. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367 because it raises a substantial federal question as to

the scope of the Ute Tribe’s jurisdiction and/or lawful authority over the affairs of

Duchesne County and its citizens and inhabitants, including the Ute Tribe’s civil and

regulatory authority and its law enforcement and prosecutorial authority. The Court

23


likewise has ancillary and/or pendent jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 13 and 14 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24. In this action, the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators are being sued for

declaratory and injunctive relief and, therefore, enjoy no sovereign immunity.

25. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

26. An existing and actual controversy within or without this Court’s

jurisdiction exists between Duchesne County and the Ute Tribe over, among other

things:

a. The Ute Tribe’s improper exercise of civil and regulatory

authority over all persons, lands and/or matters within or without the former

Reservation in violation of Federal law and the Ute Tribe’s prior disclaimer and

transfer of that authority to the State of Utah and Duchesne County;

b. The Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators’ funding, facilitating and/or

aiding and abetting sham and baseless lawsuits against Duchesne County officials in

the United States District Court and/or Ute Tribal Court so as to otherwise hinder or

obstructs justice and/or interfere with Duchesne County’s governmental authority;

c. The Ute Tribe’s unlawful exercise of criminal, civil, and

24


regulatory jurisdiction over non-members and non-tribal lands in violation of the law

and applicable agreements, including obstructing Duchesne County’s law

enforcement efforts within or without the former Reservation;

d. The Ute Tribe’s closing of Federal, State and Duchesne County

roads and rights-of-way within or without the former Reservation to Duchesne

County personnel and non-members of the Ute Tribe;

e. The Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators’ illegal and unconstitutional

assertion of criminal and civil jurisdiction over persons and lands within or without

the former Reservation such as closing public roads and rights-of-ways within or

without the former Reservation to non-members, having armed employees of the Ute4

Tribe stop and search non-members of the Ute Tribe traveling on public roads and

rights-of-way, claiming jurisdiction over all non-member children and their parent or

custodians who happen to reside within or without the former Reservation; and 5

See Letters asserting Ute Tribe’s exclusive civil regulatory authority within and4

without the former Reservation and Midview Reservoir, respectively, Exhibits 1 and 2

hereto.

In matters of child welfare and juvenile custody, the Ute Tribe has even amended5

its Law and Order Code to assert jurisdiction over all children living or domiciled within

the Reservation as well as their parents and custodians even though they are non-members

of the Ute Tribe. See Ute Law and Order Code, § 4-3-1, Exhibit 3 hereto.

25


f. Engaging in a pattern of racketeering and extortion through the

enforcement of the UTERO Ordinance by way of threats against and/or the demand

for the payment of bribes from non-members of the Ute Tribe in order for those non-

members of the Ute Tribe to directly engage in interstate commerce or business

within the former Reservation, or to indirectly engage in interstate commerce or

business within the former Reservation by doing business with persons who are

themselves engaged in interstate commerce or doing business within the former

Reservation.

27. With these and other illegal, unconstitutional and wrongful actions, the

Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators have attempted to obstruct and/or are obstructing justice

by hindering and/or otherwise interfering with pending State court criminal and civil

proceedings.


Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators are attempting to prevent Duchesne County from

conducting necessary law enforcement actions and prosecutions.


Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators are endangering the health, security, safety, welfare and

economic well-being of Duchesne County and its citizens.

26


30. The actions of the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators are causing irreparable

harm to persons and property in Duchesne County including endangering the health,

security, safety, welfare and economic well being of the citizens and inhabitants of

Duchesne County, as well as the health, security, safety, welfare and economic well-

being of Duchesne County itself.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

31. The Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators combined, agreed and conspired to oust

Duchesne County from any and all civil regulatory and criminal jurisdiction within or

without the former Reservation.

32. The objective of Ute Tribal Co-conspirators was and is to deter,

impede, hinder, defeat and/or obstruct justice, through intimidation, threats and/or

harassment, by forcing Duchesne County to stop charging and prosecuting members

of the Ute Tribe for violations of State law; and by forcing, through intimidation,

threats and/or harassment, Duchesne County officials from protecting the public and

providing law enforcement within or without the former Reservation.

33. It also was and is an objective of this conspiracy between and among the

Ute Tribal Co-conspirators to deny Duchesne County and its citizens and/or

inhabitants the equal protection of the laws, the equal privileges and immunities of

27


the laws and/or the duty, jurisdiction and authority vested in Duchesne County

pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to secure and protect the health, security, safety,

welfare and economic well-being of the citizens and inhabitants of Duchesne County.

34. At the direction and orders of the Ute Tribal Co-conspirators, the Ute

Tribe and the Business Committee are financing, facilitating and/or otherwise aiding

and abetting members of the Ute Tribe in pursuing sham and baseless lawsuits

against Duchesne County officials in the United States District Court and the Ute

Tribal Court. Specifically, the Ute Tribe and the Business Committee are paying for

the costs and attorney’s fees in these matters.

35. At the direction and orders of the Ute Tribal Co-conspirators, armed Ute

Tribal officers are closing public roads and rights-of-way within or without the

former Reservation to non-members of the Ute Tribe and Duchesne County

personnel, including stopping and searching non-members.

36. As alleged herein, the actions of the Ute Tribal Co-conspirators were

undertaken with malice and with race-based animus towards Duchesne County and

Duchesne County’s citizens and inhabitants who are non-members of the Ute Tribe.

37. The Ute Tribal Co-conspirators both knew and intended that by their

actions to exercise civil regulatory and criminal jurisdiction over non-members and to

28


disrupt and exclude Duchesne County from exercising civil regulatory and criminal

jurisdiction within or without the former Reservation, they would be acting illegally,

unlawfully and beyond their authority.

38. The overt acts committed by the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators in

furtherance of their conspiracy were intended to occur and did occur beyond the

exterior boundaries of the former Reservation and to affect people and lands not

otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Ute Tribe.

39. The overt acts committed by the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators in

furtherance of their conspiracy constitute obstruction of justice in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1512(b) and Utah Code § 76-8-301.

40. The conspiracy between and among the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators,

and the overt acts committed by them in furtherance of their conspiracy, were

intended to impede, hinder, defeat and/or obstruct justice, and did impede, hinder,

defeat and/or obstruct justice in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985.

41. The conspiracy between and among the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators,

and the overt acts committed by them in furtherance of their conspiracy were

grounded on a racial animus and intended to deny and did deny to Duchesne County,

its citizens and/or inhabitants the equal protection of the laws, the equal privileges

29


and immunities of the laws and/or the duty, jurisdiction and authority vested in

Duchesne County pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to secure and protect the health,

security, safety, welfare and economic well-being of the citizens and inhabitants of

Duchesne County all in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Illegal Suits Against Duchesne County Officials)

42. Duchesne County incorporates and re-alleges by this reference the

preceding paragraphs.

43. Duchesne County has civil and regulatory jurisdiction over its citizens

and inhabitants residing within or without the former Reservation. Duchesne County

officials, however, have been sued and/or are being sued by members of the Ute Tribe

in the United States District Court and/or Ute Tribal Court for performing their

official duties.

44. These lawsuits are part of a clear pattern and practice by the Ute Tribal

Co-Conspirators to obstruct justice by vexing, harassing and interfering with

Duchesne County officials performing their official duties.

45. The Ute Tribe provides financial assistance, facilitates and/or otherwise

aids and abets its members who are filing these sham and baseless lawsuits against

30


Duchesne County officials and does so in a clear attempt to interfere with Duchesne

County governmental authority.

46. Additionally, by funding facilitating and/or aiding and abetting these

sham and baseless lawsuits, which are intended to harass Duchesne County officials

and to hinder and obstruct the administration of justice, the Ute Tribal Co-

Conspirators are interfering with, hindering and obstructing the administration of

justice within and without the former Reservation.

47. Based on this conduct and these illegal, unconstitutional and wrongful

actions by the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators, there is an actual and existing justiciable

controversy between the parties within this Court’s jurisdiction concerning the use of

the United States District Court and/ or Ute Tribal Courts to harass and interfere with

the business of Duchesne County officials.

48. Duchesne County is entitled to a declaration of the parties’ rights as

follows:

a. The Ute Tribe, through the Ute Tribal Court, is without subject

matter jurisdiction and/or lawful authority to hear the claims being asserted against

Duchesne County officials in that forum, and by doing so has exceeded the lawful

limits of its authority;

31


b. The Ute Tribe, through the Ute Tribal Court, is enjoined from

proceeding to hear those claims and their appeals;

c. The Ute Tribe is enjoined from, directly or indirectly, continuing

to allow these sham and baseless lawsuits by its members to be prosecuted in the Ute

Tribal Court; and

d. The Ute Tribe is further enjoined from funding, facilitating and/or

aiding and abetting its members in the bringing such suits sham and baseless lawsuits

against Duchesne County officials in the United States District Court.

49. Because of the sovereign immunity claimed by the Ute Tribe and its

officials, which the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators contend shield them from an award

of monetary damages for their illegal and unconstitutional acts and wrongdoings,

Duchesne County, its citizens and inhabitants are being irreparably harmed by the Ute

Tribal Co-Conspirators’ actions, and have no adequate remedy at law. Their only

relief is injunctive. Duchesne County is thus entitled to preliminary and permanent

injunctions barring the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators from engaging in such actions.

50. Therefore, this Court should enter an order finding that the Ute Tribal

Courts does not have jurisdiction over lawsuits involving Duchesne County officials

in the performance of their official duties, and should enjoin the Ute Tribal Court

32


from hearing such suits. The Court should likewise enjoin the Ute Tribal Co-

Conspirators funding, facilitating and/or aiding and abetting members of the Ute

Tribe in the bringing of such sham and baseless lawsuits against Duchesne County

officials in the United States District Court.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Law Enforcement Authority Over State and County Roads)

51. Duchesne County incorporates and realleges by this reference the


52. Duchesne County has clear authority to enforce the laws of the State and

Duchesne County upon public roads and rights-of-way both within and without the

former Reservation.

53. The Ute Tribe sent a letter to Duchesne County on January 30, 2012,

regarding “Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction over Rights of Way for United States, State,

and County Roads.” The letter claimed to serve as “a third and final notice that

[Duchesne County] immediately cease any and all further patrolling and detention of

members of the Tribe on lands subject to exclusive jurisdictional authority of the

United States and the Ute Indian Tribe on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.”6

See January 30, 2012 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated by6

reference.

33


54. If Duchesne County did not comply with this illegal request, the Ute

Tribe threatened to “review” all “leases, rights of ways, access permits, and business

licenses of non-members and non-member companies conducting business on the

Reservation to determine whether cause exists for the termination of such leases and

other permits.” This threat against Duchesne County businesses and individuals to7

force Duchesne County to accept the Ute Tribe’s illegal and unconstitutional

assertion of criminal and regulatory jurisdiction is injurious to the health, security,

safety, welfare and economic well-being of Duchesne County as well as to the health,

security, safety, welfare and economic well-being of Duchesne County’s citizens and

inhabitants.

55. The January 30th letter also advances the fallacious legal theory that

“based on the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 1151 and current case law, State and

Duchesne County officers do not possess criminal jurisdiction over highways or roads

running through reservation lands or alternatively lands meeting the definition of

Indian country.” 8

Id.7

Id.8

34


56. The January 30th letter likewise advances the fallacious legal theory that

the “Ute Indian Tribe retains criminal jurisdiction over any right of way running

through Indian country as that term is defined by Federal law, which includes

highways, state, county, and access roads running through the exterior boundaries of

the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and all other lands identified as coming within the

meaning of Indian country pursuant to the federal criminal code and Ute V.” 9

57. Finally, the January 30th letter mistakenly finds that “the granting of an

easement for a right-of-way does not confer criminal jurisdiction to the State of Utah

or its officers.” 10

58. The Ute Tribe’s position that it is entitled to “exclusive” jurisdiction

over certain areas is both incorrect and overly simplistic. Rather, the issue of

jurisdiction is dependent on where an incident took place, the status (tribal member or

non-tribal member) of the victim, the status (tribal member or non-tribal member) of

the suspect/perpetrator, and the nature of the offense. Thus, there are no simple

jurisdictional lines to be drawn, especially at the outset of an offense, because

Id.9

Id.10

35


jurisdiction shifts based on who is involved, what has occurred, and where it

occurred.

59. Duchesne County has concurrent, and in some cases, exclusive, law

enforcement jurisdiction on all roads and rights of way within and without the former

Reservation. The Ute Tribe, therefore, is illegally and unconstitutionally attempting

to interfere with and is interfering with the Duchesne County’s law enforcement

authority both within and without the former Reservation.

60. In addition, the issue of jurisdiction over public roads and rights-of-way

was not addressed in either the 1975 litigation or in the decision Hagen v. Utah.11

61. Duchesne County has the right to patrol public roads and rights-of-way

within and without the former Reservation, pull over those who are speeding or

intoxicated on these public roads and rights-of-way, to detain those who have a

warrant out for their arrest and/or to otherwise provide its citizens and inhabitants

with the full protection of the law in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.

62. An existing and actual controversy exists within this Court’s jurisdiction

concerning the Duchesne County’s right to patrol and enforce State and County laws

510 U.S. 399 (1994).11

36


on public roads and rights-of-way within the former Reservation, and the Ute Tribe’s

claims to criminal jurisdiction over the same.


follows:

a. That the Ute Tribe does not have exclusive criminal jurisdiction

over public roads and rights of way within or without the former Reservation; and

b. That Duchesne County has the lawful right to patrol and enforce

the law on public roads and rights of way both within or without the former

Reservation.


officials, which the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators contend shield them from an award

of monetary damages for their illegal and unconstitutional acts and wrongdoings,





65. Therefore, this Court should enter an order declaring the clear legal right

of Duchesne County to patrol and enforce the law on public roads and rights of way

37


within the Reservation, and should also declare that the Ute Tribe has no exclusive

criminal jurisdiction over these state and county roads and rights of way.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Civil and Regulatory Authority)



67. As part of the jurisdictional litigation initiated by the Ute Tribe in 1975,

the Ute Tribe entered into a series of Agreements in 1998 with Duchesne County,

State of Utah, and others to resolve the litigation.

68. Those Agreements were made part of the Court’s final Order or

Judgment by Consent dismissing the Ute Tribe’s 1975 litigation (“2000 Order”). 12

69. One of these three incorporated agreements, the Disclaimer of

Civil/Regulatory Authority (“Disclaimer”), expressly disclaimed all of the Ute13

Tribe’s civil and regulatory authority over lands owned by non-members of the Ute

Tribe within the former Reservation, in exchange for agreements from Duchesne

Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 2:75-cv-00408-BSJ, Stipulated Order Vacating12

Preliminary Injunction and Dismissing the Suit with Prejudice (D. Utah, March 28,

2000)(Doc. 145). Those Agreements had been previously filed with the Court. See Doc.

96.

See Disclaimer, Exhibit 5 hereto and incorporated by reference.13

38


County, Uintah County, and the State of Utah, to refer misdemeanor arrests of Ute

Tribal members on non-Indian lands and public roads and rights-of-way within the

former Reservation to the Ute Tribal Court.

70. The Disclaimer states:

In consideration of a willingness of the State of Utah andthe Counties of Duchesne and Uintah to enter into thatAgreement, which is being entered into contemporaneouslyherewith, agreeing to refer misdemeanor arrests ofmembers of the Ute Indian Tribe (hereinafter “Tribe”)which are made on land that has been held to no longer bepart of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to the TribalCourt for prosecution and sentencing, the Tribe herebydisclaims all civil and/or regulatory authority over landdetermined to be part of the Reservation and “Indiancountry”, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151, under thedecision of the United States Court of Appeals for theTenth Circuit in the case of Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114F.3d 1513 (1997), which is owned by persons who are notmembers of federally recognized tribes. 14

71. Contrary to the Disclaimer, and therefore the 2000 Order, the Ute Tribe

has asserted civil and regulatory jurisdiction over non-members of the Ute Tribe who

do business or engaged in interstate commerce on land within the former Reservation

owned by non-members of the Ute Tribe, such as private fee land and public land

Id.(emphasis added).14

39


owned by the federal government and administered by the Bureau of Land

Management.

72. In fact, the Ute Tribe has expressly denied the continued validity of the

Disclaimer. In addition to violating the terms of the Disclaimer, the Ute Tribe’s15

actions have exceeded its jurisdiction under the Tenth Amendment as well as

applicable Federal and State law.

73. For example, the Ute Tribe passed the Ute Tribal Employment Rights

Office Ordinance (“UTERO Ordinance”). 16

74. The UTERO Ordinance defines the term “Employer” to include “any

person, company, contractor, subcontractor or entity located or engaging in

commercial or employment activity within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and

Ouray Reservation, and which employs two or more persons.” This definition of17

“employer” exceeds the scope of authority retained by the Ute Tribe in the

Disclaimer.

See Exhibit 1 hereto.15

Ordinance 13-016, attached as hereto as Exhibit 6 and incorporated by16

reference.

Id. § 3.6 (emphasis added). 17

40


75. Section 5.0 of the UTERO Ordinance states that it “shall apply to any

employer engaged in work on the [former] Reservation pursuant to a contract with or

lease, permit, or other authorization issued by the Tribe.” This UTERO requirement18

exceeds both the scope of authority retained by the Ute Tribe in the Disclaimer and

the Ute Tribe’s jurisdiction under Federal and State law.

76. “Reservation” has been defined in the UTERO Ordinance as “those

lands within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, as

confirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Ute Indian

Tribe v. State of Utah, 114 F.3d 1513, 1519 (10 Cir. 1997).” th 19

77. In Section 4.3(C), entitled “Regulatory Authority,” the UTERO

Commission is given authority by the Ute Tribe to “register off-reservation

contractors and subcontractors.” Additionally, Section 5.0 requires all employers to20

“extend a preference to qualified Indians, as provided herein, in all aspects of

employment, including but not limited to recruitment, hiring, promotion, lateral

transfers, retentions, training, contracting, and subcontracting. No employer may

Id. § 5.0 (emphasis added). 18

Id. § 3.21.19

Id. § 4.3(C)(3). 20

41


recruit, hire, or otherwise employ any non-Indian for any employment position

covered by this Ordinance; unless and until the UTERO Commission has furnished

written notice to such employer that no qualified Indians are available for such

position.” 21

78. The UTERO Ordinance also requires that an “Employment Rights Fee

shall be paid to the Uintah and Ouray Tribal Business Committee by each prime

contractor or by each employer . . . operating within the exterior boundaries of the

Uintah and Ouray Reservation, whose total contract or annual gross revenues is

$1,000.00 or more.” This “fee” requirement when applied to certain lands and22

people exceeds the scope of authority retained by the Ute Tribe in the Disclaimer and

the Ute Tribe’s jurisdiction under Federal and State law.

79. The UTERO Commission, established by the UTERO Ordinance, has

the power to issue citations and subpoenas, and impose civil penalties. Additionally,23

Id. § 5.0. 21

Id. § 6.1.22

Id. § 10.3. 23

42


the UTERO Commission has the power to award attorneys’ fees, order that the work

at issue cease, and ban the employer from the former Reservation. 24

80. However, the sanctions and penalties can be much more severe. The

UTERO Commission, for example, has the power to seize any “equipment, motor

vehicle, construction equipment or other property in the actual or constructive

possession of an employer cited for a violation of this Ordinance” and can be “held to

secure payment of any fine and/or damage assessment, to secure such person’s

appearance before the UTERO Commission, or to be forfeited as provided in Section

11.8” 25

81. Equally disturbing is the forfeiture provision contained in § 11.8 of the

UTERO Ordinance, which states that property “seized under this Ordinance,

including any liens or other interests in such property, shall be subject to forfeiture

when the property is used to facilitate the commission of the actions in violation of

this Ordinance, whether or not the owner of the property or holder of an interest in the

Id. § 11.6. 24

Id. § 11.7.25

43


property participated in, had knowledge of or consented to the use of such property on

the Tribal land in violation of this Ordinance.” 26

82. In other words, a non-Indian secured lender located off the former

Reservation, who does not even know the UTERO Ordinance exists, could lose its

interest in property without having any contract or connection with the Tribe.

Clearly, the UTERO Ordinance violates the Disclaimer, and the Ute Tribe’s

jurisdiction under Federal and State law.

83. Additionally, under Section 11.8 of the UTERO Ordinance, “innocent

owners” of seized property must prove that they took “all reasonable measures to

prevent the prohibited use of seized property, or demonstrate[] to the Court that the

person performing the prohibited action obtained possession of the property without

his/her consent.” If the “innocent owner,” such as a bank with a security interest in27

property, cannot prove this, which few secured interest holders could, the “innocent

owner’s” interest is forfeited to the Tribe. 28

Id. § 11.8.26

Id. § 11.8.27

See id.28

44


84. The UTERO Ordinance’s regulatory requirements apply to employers,

secured lenders, and others beyond the geographic area over which the Ute Tribe’s

retained any civil regulatory jurisdiction in the Disclaimer, and beyond the former

Reservation, thereby violating both the Disclaimer agreement and the Ute Tribe’s

jurisdiction under Federal and State law.

85. Business owners who do business in Duchesne County, and who are

outside the area covered by the Disclaimer, are also being subjected to the UTERO

Ordinance.

86. Ute Tribal officials are also engaged in a pattern of racketeering and

extortion with respect to the UTERO Ordinance. Ute Tribal officials do so by

demanding payments, bribes and/or kickbacks from business owners in order to do

business within the former Reservation or to engage in business with anyone that is

engaged in interstate commerce within or without the former Reservation.

87. The racketeering activities, bribery, and extortion engaged in by Ute

Tribal officials is not only injurious to interstate commerce, but it is also detrimental to

the health, security, safety, welfare and economic well-being of Duchesne County as

well as its citizens and inhabitants.

45


88. Duchesne County has a significant interest in promoting and protecting

the businesses engaged in interstate and other commerce that operate in Duchesne

County. The Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators’ creation and application of the UTERO

Ordinance is negatively impacting those businesses and interstate commerce, and

violates Federal and State laws , including antitrust laws and those laws prohibiting

racketeering, extortion, and bribery.

89. An existing and actual controversy exists within this Court’s jurisdiction

concerning the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators’ creation and application of the UTERO

Ordinance to persons and businesses outside the scope of the civil and regulatory

authority that the Ute Tribe retained in the Disclaimer and, even apart from the

Disclaimer, that the Ute Tribe may otherwise legally exercise within the former

Reservation.


follows:

a. That the Ute Tribe’s UTERO Ordinance violates the Disclaimer,

b. That the Ute Tribe’s UTERO Ordinance exceeds the scope of the

Ute Tribe’s authority when applied to businesses within or without the former

46


Reservation including those engaged in commerce in the areas in which the Ute Tribe

disclaimed civil and regulatory authority, and

c. That Ute Tribe’s UTERO Ordinance, as applied to non-Tribal

persons and businesses who are not operating in areas over which the Ute Tribe has

jurisdiction, violates Federal and State laws, including laws related to racketeering,

extortion, bribery, and antitrust.


officials, which the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators contend shield them from an award of

monetary damages for their illegal and unconstitutional acts and wrongdoings,





92. Therefore, this Court should enter an Order enjoining the Ute Tribe from

applying its UTERO Ordinance to businesses that are off the Reservation, that are

located within areas where the Ute Tribe disclaimed its civil and regulatory authority

in the Disclaimer, and/or that are outside of the Ute Tribe’s jurisdiction under Federal

and State law. This Court should also enter an Order enjoining the Ute Tribal Co-

47


Conspirators from engaging in a pattern of racketeering, extortion, bribery and

antitrust violations with respect to its application of the UTERO Ordinance.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Access to Public Roads and Rights-of-way)



94. Duchesne County and its officials, including law enforcement personal

have the constitutional right to travel on public roads and rights-of-way within and

without the former Reservation.

95. The citizens and/or inhabitants of Duchesne County, including persons

otherwise present in Duchesne County, likewise have the constitutional right to travel

on public roads and rights-of-way within and without the former Reservation.

96. Despite the existence of this constitutional right to travel, the Ute Tribal

Co-Conspirators have ordered armed officers of the Ute Tribe to remove signs

identifying roads and rights-of-way as public and installing “No Trespassing” signs on

these otherwise public roads and rights-of way within or without the former

Reservation.

97. Despite the existence of this constitutional right to travel, the Ute Tribal

48


Co-Conspirators have ordered armed officers of the Ute Tribe to stop motorist on

these public roads and rights-of-way to search their vehicles and to otherwise deny

them the right to travel on these public roads and rights-of-way within or without the

former Reservation.


follows:

a. That the Ute Tribe does not have exclusive criminal jurisdiction

over public roads and rights-of-way within or without the former Reservation; and

b. That Duchesne County as well as the citizens and/or persons

present in Duchesne County have the lawful right to travel on these public roads and

rights-of-way within or without the former Reservation.








49



of Duchesne County as well as its citizens and/or others present in Duchesne County to

travel on public roads and rights of way within the former Reservation, and should

also declare that the Ute Tribe has no exclusive criminal jurisdiction over these public

roads and rights of way within or without the former Reservation, including the

jurisdiction to stop and search non-members on these public roads and rights-of-way,

or to close these public roads to non-members of the Ute Tribe who travel these roads

within or without the former Reservation.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(42 U.S.C. § 1985)



102. As alleged herein above, the actions of the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators

were and are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985 in that the objective of their race based

conspiracy was and is through intimidation, threats and/or harassment to deter,

impede, hinder, defeat and/or obstruct justice, and the right to travel within or without

the former Reservation:

a. By forcing Duchesne County to stop charging and prosecuting members

of the Ute Tribe for violations of State law within or without the former Reservation;

50


b. By preventing Duchesne County officials from providing law

enforcement to its citizens and in habitant who happen to live or otherwise be present

within or without the former Reservation;

c. By denying Duchesne County as well as its citizens and inhabitants the

equal protection of the laws, the equal privileges and immunities of the laws, and/or

the duty, jurisdiction and authority vested in Duchesne County pursuant to the Tenth

Amendment to secure and protect the health, security, safety, welfare and economic

well-being of the citizens and inhabitants of Duchesne County.









of Duchesne County as well as its citizens and/or others present in Duchesne County to

travel on public roads and rights of way within the former Reservation, and should

51


also declare that the Ute Tribe has no exclusive jurisdiction over these public roads

and rights-of-way within or without the former Reservation.

PRAYER

Wherefore, Duchesne County prays for relief against the Ute Tribal Co-

Conspirators as follows:

1. For a declaration under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that the Ute Tribe,

through the Ute Tribal Court, is without subject matter jurisdiction and/or lawful

authority to hear the claims being asserted against Duchesne County officials in that

forum and by doing so has exceeded the lawful limits of its authority; and based upon

that declaration, for an Order enjoining the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators, through the

Ute Tribal Court, from proceeding to hear those claims, and further enjoining the Ute

Tribal Co-Conspirators from, directly or indirectly, continuing to allow those claims

and appeals to be prosecuted in the Ute Tribal Court. The Court should also enter an

Order enjoining the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirator for, directly or indirectly, funding,

facilitating and/or aiding and abetting members of the Ute Tribe in bring and/or

continuing the sham and baseless lawsuits against Duchesne County Officials in the

United States District Court.

52


2. For a declaration under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that Duchesne

County has the criminal jurisdiction over public roads and rights of way within and

without the former Reservation and that Duchesne County has the lawful right to

patrol and enforce the law on the public roads and rights of way within and without the

former Reservation. Based upon these declarations, this Court should enter an Order

enjoining the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators from interfering with Duchesne County’s

lawful patrolling on public roads and rights of way within and without the former

Reservation; enjoining the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators from interfering with

Duchesne County’s lawful enforcement of the law on public roads and rights of way

within and without the former Reservation; and enjoining Ute Tribal officers from

stopping, detaining and/or searching non-Indians within or without the former

Reservation.

3. For a declaration under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that the Ute Tribe’s

UTERO Ordinance violates the Disclaimer, exceeds the scope of the Ute Tribe’s

authority when applied to businesses located off the former Reservation and those that

are conducting business within or without the former Reservation in areas where the

Ute Tribe disclaimed civil and regulatory authority, and violates Federal and State

laws, including antitrust laws and those laws prohibiting racketeering, extortion, and

53


bribery. Based upon these declarations, this Court should enter an Order enjoining the

Ute Tribe from applying UTERO to businesses that are off the former Reservation,

that are located within areas where the Ute Tribe disclaimed its civil and regulatory

authority in the Disclaimer, and/or that are outside of the Ute Tribe’s jurisdiction

under Federal and State law. This Court should also enter an Order enjoining the Ute

Tribe from exercising its civil and regulatory authority in violation of the Disclaimer

and/or Federal and State law, including antitrust laws and those laws prohibiting

racketeering, extortion, and bribery.

4. That the Ute Tribal Co-Conspirators be directed to file with this Court

and serve on Duchesne County within five days after the service of any injunction

order, a report in writing, under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in

which the Ute Tribe has complied with the injunction.

5. For an award of its costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney fee.

6. For any such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

//

//

//

//

54


DATED this 31 day of May, 2013.st

DUCHESNE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

/s/ Stephen D. Foote Stephen D. FooteDuchesne County Attorney

/s/ Marea A. Doherty Marea A. DohertyDeputy Duchesne County Attorney

SUITTER AXLAND, PLLC

/s/ jesse c. trentadue Jesse C. TrentadueCarl F. HuefnerNoah M. HoaglandBritton R. Butterfield


T:\7000\7739\4\DUCHESNE COUNTY ANSWER and COUNTERCLAIM.wpd


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 31 day of May, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoingst

document with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Notice will automatically beelectronically mailed to the following individual(s) who are registered with the U.S. District CourtCM/ECF System:

J. Preston StieffJ. Preston Stieff Law Offices136 East South Temple, Suite 2400Salt Lake City, Utah 84111Attorneys for Plaintiff

G. Mark ThomasUintah County AttorneyJonathan A. StearmerChief Deputy Uintah County Attorney641 East 300 South, suite 200Vernal, Utah 84078Attorneys for Uintah County

E. Blaine RawsonJacquelyn D. RogersRay Quinney & Nebeker36 South State Street, Suite 1400P.O. Box 45385Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0835Attorneys for Uintah County

J. Craig SmithD. Williams Ronnow SMITH HARTVIGSEN, PLLC 175 South Main Street, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attorneys for Defendants Duchesne City

Amy F. Hugie33 South Main, Ste. 2ABrigham City, Utah 84302Attorney for Myton City

Kyle J. KaiserAssistant Utah Attorney GeneralJohn E. SwallowUtah Attorney General Utah State Capital350 North State St., Ste. 230 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320Attorney for State of Utah

Grant H. CharlesRoosevelt City Attorney P.O. Box 1182Duchesne, Utah 84021Attorneys for Roosevelt City

J. Craig Smith D. Williams RonnowSMITH HARTVIGSEN, PLLC

175 South Main Street, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attorneys for Defendants Duchesne City

/s/ jesse c. trentadue

56




attorneys for duchesne county - turtle talk · 2015-01-26 · duchesne county, a body politic and...

Documents