Here's the order, which starts like this:
“No one fights dirtier or more brutally than blood; only family knows its own weaknesses, the exact placement of the heart.” Whitney Otto, How to Make an American Quilt (1991). Whitney Otto’s quote seems a particularly apt description of the emotionally and politically charged litigation, occurring in multiple judicial venues, between the named parties, whom include the following.
There's even a Gandhi quote in the conclusion:
I am quite certain that this Omnibus Order will affect minimally the incessant litigation and sour relations between the parties. I simply implore the parties to heed that “an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi
The meat of the order is good reading as well:
Despite every effort of the Miccosukee Tribe to bring this battle to the doorstep of the federal courthouse, the door cannot open to allow an intra-tribal dispute of this nature. Even if it could, the Miccosukee Tribe's claims would nevertheless be denied entry because in short the Miccosukee Tribe simply does not state a federal cause of action.
5 comments:
It was about time. These guys have been put through the ringer. Congratulations! a well deserved victory. Now, let hell break loose on the demons.
Congrats to David's embattled FF team which squeaked out a 129-126 victory over yours truly. David rode the Dolphin's Lamar Miller's running on MNF to squeak out a win. David and my team are now both 2-2.
Who cares, Rumpole?
If this is affirmed on appeal, it won't be because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The district court plainly did. The tribe sued for violations of the federal RICO statute, which *expressly* provides for federal-court jurisdiction. The district court therefore had subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whether the tribe stated a claim for RICO, however, is another matter. Beginning with a 2004 decision called Arbaugh (which the district court cited, albeit for a different proposition), the Supreme Court began to clarify the differences between dismissals based on subject-matter jurisdiction and those based on the failure to state a claim. The Eleventh Circuit's most recent en banc decision (an immigration case) talks about the differences at length, too. Perhaps the Eleventh Circuit will use this case to further highlight the distinction, even if the district court's dismissal is ultimately affirmed.
"...the Miccosukee Tribe's claims would nevertheless be denied entry because in short the Miccosukee Tribe simply does not state a federal cause of action."
what was the complaint, like 400 pages I think the order notes?
Sounds like it was written by a pro se lunatic .
Post a Comment