text:
Puyallup Indian Tribe; Suquamish Indian Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Intervenor-Plaintiffs/Petitioners-Appellees, v. <<
UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs, Puyallup Indian Tribe; Suquamish Indian Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Intervenor-Plaintiffs/Petitioners-Appellees, v.
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, Intervenor-Plaintiff/Respondent-Appellant, v. State of Washington, et al., Defendants.
Decided: December 13, 2000
Before: SCHROEDER, BEEZER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Annette Klapstein (argued), Law offices of the Puyallup Indian Tribe, Tacoma, Washington, for intervenor-plaintiff/petitioner-appellee Puyallup Indian Tribe. Scott W. Wheat (argued), Office of Tribal Attorney of the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Suquamish, Washington, for intervenor-plaintiff/petitioner-appellee Suquamish Indian Tribe. Alix Foster, Office of the Tribal Attorney of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, LaConner, Washington, for intervenor-plaintiff/petitioner-appellee Swinomish Indian Tribe. Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser, Ayer & Jozwiak, Seattle, Washington, for intervenor-plaintiff/appellee Tulalip Tribes of Washington. Gregory M. O'Leary (argued), Seattle, Washington, for intervenor-plaintiff/respondent-appellant Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
This appeal concerns the limits of the Muckleshoot Tribe's saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area under the Boldt Decision. Because we agree with the district court that the Muckleshoot's saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area, as found by Judge Boldt, was limited to Elliott Bay, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the Puyallup, Suquamish, and Swinomish Tribes.
Background and Procedural History
This case centers on the interpretation of a lengthy and detailed district court opinion published in 1974 after an extensive trial involving a voluminous record. In United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D.Wash.1974) ( "the Boldt Decision"), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1975), Judge Boldt adjudicated the treaty-reserved fishing rights of several tribes in Washington state, including the parties to this dispute. Central to this case is Finding of Fact 76 ("Finding 76") of the opinion, which states:
Prior to and during treaty times, the Indian ancestors of the present day Muckleshoot Indians had the usual and accustomed fishing places primarily at locations on the upper Puyallup, the Carbon, Stuck, White, Green, Cedar, and Black Rivers, the tributaries to these rivers (including Soos Creek, Burns Creek and Newaukum Creek) and Lake Washington, and secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound. Villages and their weir sites were often located together. [FPTO § 3-53; Ex. USA-20, p. 38; Ex. USA-27b, pp. 7-16; Ex. PL-23, pp. 11-12]
Id. at 367 (emphasis added) (brackets in original). After the decision was issued, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ("the Muckleshoot") opened commercial fisheries in some of the areas designated in Finding 76.
Judge Boldt's decision did not explicitly address shellfish entitlements; rather, it concerned the rights to fin fish. The individual tribes' entitlements to shellfish, which are not at issue here, were addressed in a subsequent case, United States v. Washington, 873 F.Supp. 1422 (W.D.Wash.1994) ("Washington II"), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir.1998).
After Washington II, the Muckleshoot sought to open fisheries in Area 11 of Puget Sound. Area 11 is a geographically-defined region of Puget Sound located to the west of the City of Seattle. Area 11, as a fishing zone, was not defined at the time of Boldt Decision; it was subsequently established by state regulation. In response to this action by the Muckleshoot, the Puyallup Indian Tribe ("the Puyallup") filed a Request for Determination in district court. The Request sought a determination that the Muckleshoot's usual and accustomed ("U&A") saltwater fishing area, as determined by Finding 76 of the Boldt Decision, does not include any areas outside Elliott Bay (now known as Area 10A, like Area 11 a fishing region created by state regulation). With the court's permission, the Suquamish Indian Tribe ("the Suquamish") and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community ("the Swinomish") filed a Cross-Request for Determination seeking a similar ruling.
In January 1998, the Muckleshoot filed a Motion to Dismiss the Request and the Tribes (the Puyallup, Suquamish, Swinomish) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on their Requests for Determination. On August 5, 1998, the district court granted the Muckleshoot's motion to dismiss with respect to the Tribes' claims that the Muckleshoot had no saltwater fishing rights outside Areas 9, 10, and 11. The court reasoned that it did not have jurisdiction over areas other than Areas 9, 10, and 11 because the Muckleshoot had not manifested an intent to conduct saltwater fishing in Areas other than 9, 10, and 11. The court then denied the Tribes' motion for summary judgment and ordered an evidentiary hearing on whether Areas 9, 10, and 11 were part of the Muckleshoot's U&A under Finding 76 of the Boldt Decision.
Both parties filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. On September 10, 1999, the district court held that the Muckleshoot's U & A under Finding 76 was limited to Elliott Bay (Area 10A) and enjoining the Muckleshoot from fishing in Areas 9, 10, and 11. The Muckleshoot appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a)(1).1
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Robi v. Reed, 173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 952, 120 S.Ct. 375, 145 L.Ed.2d 293 (1999). This court must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellants, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law. See, e.g., Berry v. Valence Tech., Inc., 175 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1019, 120 S.Ct. 528, 145 L.Ed.2d 409 (1999). The court does not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter; rather, the court only decides whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Colacurcio v. City of Kent, 163 F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir.1998).
I. Ambiguity in Finding 76
This case turns on the interpretation of the phrase "secondarily in the waters of Puget Sound" as used by Judge Boldt in Finding 76. The case, therefore, resembles one of statutory construction, with the Boldt Decision serving as the instrument to be interpreted. The Muckleshoot's argument is essentially one of plain meaning. According to the Muckleshoot, the text of Finding 76 is unambiguous because "Puget Sound" has a well-understood, common geographical meaning. If Judge Boldt, who was intimately familiar with the geography of the region and its relevance to the case, meant to confine the Muckleshoot's saltwater U&A to inner Elliott Bay, the Muckleshoot contend Judge Boldt could have expressly done so in Finding 76.
The Tribes counter that the phrase is ambiguous when examined in the context of the evidence before Judge Boldt. Given the evidence that Judge Boldt relied upon and other Findings of Fact and Law in the opinion, the Tribes argue that Judge Boldt could not have intended to include the expansive area claimed by the Muckleshoot as part of their saltwater U&A. Cf. Children's Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir.1999) ("To determine the plain meaning of a statutory provision, we examine not only the specific provision at issue, but also the structure of the statute as a whole, including its object and policy.").
The parallels between this case and one of statutory construction should not be overemphasized. There are important distinctions between interpreting a judicial opinion and a statute. First, the documents and the evidence the court relied upon, which are the rough equivalent of legislative history, play a much larger and more definitive role in interpreting the judicial text than do the traditional components of legislative history in statutory interpretation. Finding 76 specifically cites the supporting documents used as the bases for its conclusions. There is no question, then, that the court relied upon this information in reaching its decision. Moreover, in referencing the documents cited in Finding 76, Judge Boldt said, "The court finds that in specific facts, the reports of Dr. Barbara Lane, Exhibits USA-20 to 30 and USA-53, have been exceptionally well researched and reported and are established by a preponderance of the evidence. They are found to be authoritative and reliable summaries of relevant aspects of Indian life in the case area at and prior to the time of the treaties․" Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 350.
More importantly, judicial opinions are simply not statutes and the rules governing the interpretation of the two reflect this. In general, there are no canons of construction for the interpretation of opinions, reflecting the fact that textual precision, while a highly valued judicial quality, is at the very center of statutory interpretation. See, e.g., United States v. Partlow, 159 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir.1998) (where the terms of a statute are unambiguous, its plain meaning must control).
Opinions, unlike statutes, are not usually written with the knowledge or expectation that each and every word may be the subject of searching analysis. Acknowledging this fact, this court held long ago that the "language of the court must be read in the light of the facts before it." Julian Petroleum Corp. v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F.2d 360, 362 (9th Cir.1927); see also Marshall v. Andrew F. Mahony Co., 56 F.2d 74, 78 (9th Cir.1932) ("[T]he language of all cases must be taken and understood in light of the facts of the case in which the language was employed.").
With these concepts in mind, the parties' debate over whether the language of Finding 76 is unambiguous is largely misdirected, inasmuch as an analysis of the decision is necessary, whether the text is unambiguous or not, in order to understand Finding 76 "in light of the facts of the case." An unambiguous text is certainly a factor to be considered in this analysis, but it does not necessarily terminate the inquiry.
Our decision in Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir.1998), supports this proposition. There, this court did not merely rely on what appeared to be unambiguous language, the meaning of "Whidbey Island," in a previous judicial finding also authored by Judge Boldt. Rather, the court went beyond the plain language and examined the evidence, concluding that the Swinomish Tribe "offered no evidence that suggests that [the Finding of Fact] is ambiguous or that the court intended something other than its apparent meaning." Id. at 1358 (emphasis added).
As the district court recognized in this case, the Tribes have brought forth precisely such evidence. We agree with the district court's conclusion:
[T]he evidence before Judge Boldt establishes, at a minimum, that the Muckleshoot's predecessors may have occasionally fished in the open waters of Elliott Bay near the mouth of the Duwamish and gathered shellfish on the shores of Elliott Bay. Based on this evidence, the court concludes that Judge Boldt intended to include those areas (Department of Fisheries Area 10A) in the Muckleshoot U&A․ The court finds, however, that there is [sic] no evidence in the record before Judge Boldt, nor is it persuaded by extra-record evidence, that Judge Boldt intended to describe a saltwater U&A any larger than the open water and shores of Elliott Bay. The court agrees with the Muckleshoot that Judge Boldt's use of a broad term like "Puget Sound" is perplexing in light of the geographic precision he generally used in describing U&As. And it agrees that, as a resident of the Puget Sound area, it is fair to assume that he would not have used the terms "Elliott Bay" and "Puget Sound" interchangeably. However, there is no evidence in the record before Judge Boldt that supports a [saltwater] U&A beyond Elliott Bay.
This conclusion is based on our analysis of the information before Judge Boldt. The Muckleshoot's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
II. The Evidence Before Judge Boldt
A. Evidence Referenced by Judge Boldt
As the district court recognized, the most relevant evidence in determining what Judge Boldt intended by the phrase "secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound" consists of the four documents referenced in Finding 76. The first document, the final pretrial order, uses language nearly identical to that in Finding 76 and is, therefore, not very helpful.
The second document, Exhibit USA-20, p. 38, is a portion of Dr. Lane's "Conclusions Based on Available Documents and Ethnographic Data." This report, which describes the fishing practices of the Muckleshoot's ancestors, who signed the treaty Judge Boldt was interpreting, concludes that "[t]he principle fisheries of the ancestors of the Muckleshoot both prior to and during treaty times included Green River, White River, Stuck River, Cedar River, and tributary creeks."
The third document, Exhibit USA-27b, pp. 7-16, provides an extensive discussion of the fishing practices of the Muckleshoot's ancestors. The relevant portion of the discussion states:
The traditional fisheries of the [ancestors of the] Muckleshoot included but were not limited to Puyallup and Carbon Rivers and tributary creeks; the Stuck, White, Green and Cedar rivers and tributary creeks; and Lake Washington. In addition there was some trolling for salmon in salt waters when families descended the rivers to get shell fish supplies on the beaches of the Sound.
The last document listed in Finding 76 is Exhibit PL-23, pp. 11-12, a portion of a report of Dr. Carroll Riley. The report describes the area where the Muckleshoot's ancestors lived and, like the other documents, concludes that the ancestor tribes relied primarily on freshwater fishing: "[T]he Indians in this area obtained the greatest part of their subsistence from fish caught in the White and Green Rivers․ They occasionally made the trip down river to Elliott Bay on fishing and clamming expeditions."
These documents indicate that the Muckleshoot's ancestors were almost entirely an upriver people who primarily relied on freshwater fishing for their livelihoods. Insofar as they conducted saltwater fishing, the referenced documents contain no evidence indicating that such fishing occurred with regularity anywhere beyond Elliott Bay.
This conclusion is buttressed by other evidence before Judge Boldt. The reports that Judge Boldt relied upon make a general distinction between downriver predecessor tribes, also referred to as saltwater tribes, and upriver tribes. The predecessor tribes to the Muckleshoot were considered to be upriver tribes. In an excerpt from the anthropological report of Dr. Lane, the Muckleshoot's ancestors are described as having "lived in treaty times in about twenty villages on the Duwamish and upper Puyallup drainage systems." These ancestors, according to Dr. Lane, were " 'upriver' people in contrast to those people living directly on the bays and lower reaches of the river."
The Muckleshoot's ancestors may have occasionally conducted saltwater fishing beyond Elliott Bay. But it is important to remember that Judge Boldt was deciding the "usual and accustomed" fishing grounds under the provisions of the Treaties. Isolated or infrequent excursions beyond Elliott Bay do not meet the "usual and accustomed" standard.2 The documents listed in Finding 76 do not indicate the existence of saltwater fishing beyond Elliott Bay that was more than "incidental" or "occasional."
B. The Muckleshoot's Arguments
The Muckleshoot's argument that their ancestors conducted saltwater fishing beyond Elliott Bay rests on four pieces of evidence: (1) Dr. Lane's reports; (2) Dr. Carroll Riley's report; (3) excerpts from a book by the anthropologist Marian Smith; and (4) testimony of Puyallup tribal members given before the Indian Claims Commission ("ICC") in the 1950s. None of these establishes that the Muckleshoot's ancestors had U&A fishing grounds beyond Elliott Bay.
1. Dr. Lane's Reports
a. Exhibit USA-27b
The Muckleshoot contend that Exhibit USA-27b is the key document for the purpose of ascertaining the intended scope of the phrase "secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound." The Muckleshoot first argue that the report's statement that "there was some trolling for salmon in salt water when families descended the rivers to get the shell fish supplies on the beaches of the sound" is regional in scope and broader than Elliott Bay. Judge Boldt adapted the phrase "on the beaches of Puget Sound," the Muckleshoot contend, to mean "in the saltwater of Puget Sound" to conform with the description of the trolling in Dr. Lane's report and to emphasize the inclusion of waters in Puget Sound and not merely the beaches. The Muckleshoot also argue that the phrase "the beaches of Puget Sound" has a plain meaning which is broader than Elliott Bay and that Dr. Lane did not mention Elliott Bay at all in her description of the Muckleshoot's saltwater U&A.
Addressing the last point first, the lack of a discussion of Elliott Bay in Dr. Lane's report works against the Muckleshoot's argument, not for it. Dr. Lane's report lists the saltwater U&As for those tribes that she believed engaged in significant saltwater fishing. The only tribes for which there is no mention of specific saltwater fisheries are three upriver tribes, including the Muckleshoot. This feature of the report suggests two conclusions-(1) the phrase "on the beaches of Puget Sound" was used because there was no established (i.e. U&A) saltwater fishing location anywhere and (2) the omission of "Puget Sound" from Dr. Lane's findings in Exhibit USA-20, which lists the principal fisheries of the Muckleshoot's ancestors, was not inadvertent or inconsequential. Rather, it suggests that Puget Sound was not a principal saltwater fishing ground.
More importantly, all references in Dr. Lane's report on Muckleshoot saltwater fishing only pertain to saltwater fisheries in the Duwamish drainage system. The Duwamish empties only into Elliott Bay. Nowhere in Dr. Lane's report is there a reference to the Muckleshoot's ancestors fishing on a drainage system that empties anywhere outside Elliott Bay.
The only other reference to saltwater in Dr. Lane's report is the statement, in Exhibit USA-27b and listed in Finding 76, "In addition, there was some trolling for salmon in salt water when families descended upon the rivers to get shell fish supplies on the beaches of the sound." This statement does not establish that the Muckleshoot's ancestors had any saltwater U&A outside Elliott Bay. The rivers that the families "descended upon" are those referenced in the preceding sentence-the Puyallup, Carbon, Stuck, White, Green, and Cedar. At the time of the treaty, the White, Green, and Cedar rivers flowed into the then-existent Black River which became the Duwamish River and emptied into Elliott Bay. This is consistent with Dr. Lane's use of the term "Duwamish drainage system" throughout her report. The "beaches of Puget Sound" that the Muckleshoot's ancestors would reach after descending the White, Green, and Cedar rivers were the beaches of Elliott Bay and those beaches alone.
Of the remaining rivers, the Stuck flowed south from the White River and into the Puyallup and the Carbon River was a tributary of the upper Puyallup. At treaty time, the lower Puyallup was within the territory of the Puyallup Tribe and the Muckleshoot's ancestors could not have descended all the way down the Puyallup River without entering Puyallup territory. Because these fishing grounds "on the beaches of Puget Sound" are within the exclusive territory of the present-day Puyallup Reservation, the Muckleshoot cannot claim them as part of their U&A territory.3 Thus the only referenced rivers that are not part of the Duwamish drainage system cannot yield the Muckleshoot saltwater U&A rights.4
b. Seasonal Fishing
Dr. Lane's report, cited as Exhibit USA-27a, explains that the villages of the Muckleshoot's ancestors "were only occupied by the entire village group during the winter season. At other times of the year, portions of the population de-camped in different directions to secure food and other supplies." Judge Boldt recognized this when he wrote, "[M]ost groups claimed autumn fishing use rights in the waters near to their winter villages. Spring and summer fishing areas were often more distantly located and often were shared with other groups from other villages." Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 353. The facts before Judge Boldt show that the Muckleshoot's ancestors did not regularly fish outside Elliott Bay, even during the spring and summer fishing seasons.
First, the above statements contained in Exhibit USA-27b were not specifically referenced in Finding 76, so their relevance should not be overemphasized. More importantly, the evidence cited by the Muckleshoot does not establish that any seasonal saltwater fishing areas beyond Elliott Bay were used by their ancestors with enough regularity to establish them as U&A grounds. See also Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 351 (Finding 14) ("Marine waters were also used as thoroughfares for travel by Indians who trolled en route. Such occasional and incidental trolling was not considered to make the marine waters traveled thereon the usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the traveling Indians.") (internal exhibit references omitted).
c. Specific Sites Listed in Dr. Lane's Report
The Muckleshoot claim that Appendix 2 to Dr. Lane's report, which contains excerpts from T.T. Waterman's manuscript describing field work done from 1917 through 1920, contains information on sites beyond Elliott Bay where the Muckleshoot's ancestors fished. But the excerpts in Appendix 2 can only be understood with reference to Waterman's findings in Appendix 1. In his listing of "Duwamish Villages on the eastern side of the Sound," Waterman lumped together both upriver and downriver (or saltwater) tribes. Dr. Lane, however, made a distinction between the two groups, finding that the downriver tribes were not ancestors of the Muckleshoot. Thus, it cannot be said that the sites listed in Appendix 2 were fishing grounds of the Muckleshoot's ancestors.
Moreover, Appendix 1 contains a list, selected by Dr. Lane from Waterman's manuscripts, of place names used by treaty-time bands, including the ancestors of tribes other than the Muckleshoot. The list does not include any saltwater sites. Finally, Appendix 1 contains a map of Muckleshoot fishing cities. This map only includes sites on rivers; there are no saltwater sites marked. Given this background, that Appendix 2 does not specifically identify the Muckleshoot ancestor sites, and that the evidence contained in Appendix 2 is only briefly mentioned in Dr. Lane's reports, the Muckleshoot have failed to demonstrate that the evidence established treaty-time saltwater U&As beyond Elliott Bay.
The Muckleshoot also claim that another appendix to Dr. Lane's report, a statement by the anthropologist Marian Smith that people from the upper Puyallup valley made "special trips to the Sound in the neighborhood of what is now Redondo Beach" to catch devil fish, supports their reading of Finding 76. The excerpt states that the devil fish, i.e. octopi, were not fished. Rather, "[t]hey were picked up while asleep along the shore․" Consequently, the excerpt does not establish a basis for a saltwater U&A at Redondo Beach even if the Muckleshoot's ancestors engaged in this form of collection.
2. Dr. Riley's Report (Exhibit PL-23)
Dr. Riley's report, which was cited in Finding 76, says that the Muckleshoot's treaty-time ancestors "occasionally made the trip down-river to Elliott Bay on fishing and clamming expeditions." The Muckleshoot argue that this statement means that Judge Boldt implicitly rejected limiting the saltwater U&A to Elliott Bay and chose instead a much broader area. If Judge Boldt had intended to define the U&A as Elliott Bay, the Muckleshoot contend, then he could have done so very simply and Dr. Riley's report would have provided the evidentiary basis for such a finding.
The Muckleshoot are correct when they contend that Judge Boldt specifically said that Dr. Lane's testimony prevails over Dr. Riley's in the event of a conflict between the two. See Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 350. Contrary to the Muckleshoot's assertion, however, there is no conflict between Dr. Lane and Dr. Riley on this matter. As discussed above, Dr. Lane's reference to the "beaches of Puget Sound" does not encompass, based on the evidence, an area beyond Elliott Bay. Even if it did, it would be odd for Judge Boldt to have included a contrary reference, the testimony of Dr. Riley, in Finding 76 for the purpose of implicitly rejecting it.
3. ICC Testimony
The Muckleshoot point to the findings of fact made by the ICC in 1966 in a case involving the Puyallup Tribe. The ICC found that the testimony before it "tend[ed] to show" that the "islands in southern Puget Sound" were used jointly by a number of treaty-time tribes, including the ancestors of the Muckleshoot. The Muckleshoot maintain that this finding supports a broad reading of "saltwater of Puget Sound" in Judge Boldt's decision. This is incorrect.
In a post-trial substantive order, Judge Boldt said that an ICC finding in a case involving land claims of the Nooksack Tribe5 "in no way dealt with asserted Indian treaty fishing rights." United States v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1042 (W.D.Wash.1978). The evidence in the ICC report is insufficient to support a broad reading of Dr. Lane's phrase "the beaches of Puget Sound" or Finding 76's phrase "the saltwater of Puget Sound." Even assuming fishing did take place, there is nothing in the ICC finding to indicate that it met the requirements of "usual and accustomed."
4. Excerpts from Marian Smith's Book
The Muckleshoot argue that excerpts, introduced at the underlying trial, from Marian Smith's book, The Puyallup-Nisqually, also establish that the Muckleshoot's ancestors lived and fished in Puget Sound beyond Elliott Bay. According to Smith, people from the village at the forks of the White and Green rivers came to the area around present-day Redondo Beach to gather shellfish. These Indians included the treaty-time ancestors of the Muckleshoot. See Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 366 ("Indians from the Green and White River areas ․ and some Indians from the upriver portions of the Puyallup River ․ were removed and consolidated on the Muckleshoot Reservation.")
This evidence is also insufficient to establish a saltwater U&A beyond Elliott Bay. Smith's account does not establish that the Muckleshoot's ancestors trolled the waters of Redondo Beach. As discussed above, Smith's findings were that these people collected devil fish on the "shores" of Redondo Beach. This finding is not inconsistent with a determination by Judge Boldt that the Muckleshoot's ancestors did not engage in U&A saltwater fishing beyond Elliott Bay.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's Motion for Judicial Notice of Maps and Intervenor-Plaintiffs/Petitioners-Appellees Puyallup Indian Tribe's, Suquamish Indian Tribe's and Swinomish Indian Tribal Community's Motion to Strike are denied as moot.
1. The district court did not certify its judgment as a final order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The matter before the court was a subproceeding and the court's judgment was final as to the issues in the subproceeding. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521-22, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) (stating that final judgment "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment") (internal quotation marks omitted). Jurisdiction under section 1291 is therefore proper. Jurisdiction also lies under § 1292(a)(1) to review the district court's award of injunctive relief.
2. Explaining the scope of "usual and accustomed," Judge Boldt said:Although there is no evidence of the precise understanding the Indians had of the treaty language, the treaty commissioners probably used the term [] "usual and accustomed" ․ in [its] common parlance, and the meaning of [it] as found in a contemporaneous dictionary most likely would be what was intended by the government representatives. The 1828 and 1862 editions of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language define the term as follows:accustomed: Being familiar by use; habituated, inured ․ usual; often practiced ․usual: Customary; common; frequent; such as occurs in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events.․ The words "usual and accustomed" were probably used in their restrictive sense, not intending to include areas where use was occasional or incidental.Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 356.
3. "An exclusive right of fishing was reserved by the tribes within the area and boundary waters of their reservations." Washington, 384 F.Supp. at 332.
4. The Muckleshoot contend that it is relevant that the Puyallup Reservation did not exist before the treaties. This point is irrelevant to Judge Boldt's determination that exclusive fishing rights exist on present-day reservations.
5. The ICC finding relied upon by Muckleshoot also involves a dispute related solely to land claims and not involving fishing.
MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:


Do you live in the historic district (map) of the Astor Neighborhood? If so, you are eligible to order a historic plaque for your house.
Please contact Weber Awards directly to order your plaque.
The plaques measure 10″ across and 7″ in height.
There are two styles to choose from, aluminum which is a little lighter, and the bronze which is heavier. The aluminum estimated cost $167.00 and the Bronze is $274.00.


Star Termite Inspection is going to be available for all your requirements involving Termite Inspection in Crest Park, CA. Our team of qualified experts will provide the professional services that you require with the most advanced technology in the market. We make certain that you receive the very best service, the ultimate value, and the best quality supplies. Call us today by dialing 844-244-3120 and we will be happy to go over your options, respond to the questions you have, and arrange a scheduled appointment to get started with preparing your project.
Star Termite Inspection focuses primarily on customer satisfaction to be sure that you are satisfied with our business. We want you to enjoy the job we achieve, and we work tirelessly to fulfill all of your preferences and expectations. We fully understand all your concerns, and we'll be there to assist. We predict all your concerns and questions, and we can settle them whenever you call. You want to put together the most suitable choices for your own work, and we know the way to make it easier to do just that.
Conserving money is a crucial part of the task. On the other hand, you require the most beneficial and highest standard of services when it comes to Termite Inspection in Crest Park, CA. We provide you with the finest quality while still costing you less. Our plan is to be certain that you get the right products and a result which can last as time passes. It will be possible because we appreciate how to help you save time and costs on products and labor. Contact Star Termite Inspection if you want the most effective support at a minimal rate. You are able to get in touch with our business by dialing 844-244-3120 to begin.
Termite Inspection are available in Crest Park, CA.
You have to be knowledgeable when it comes to Termite Inspection in Crest Park, CA. You should not go in without consideration, and you'll want to learn what to anticipate. You won't need to face any kind of surprises whenever you deal with Star Termite Inspection. Start by going over your job with our client service representatives once you dial 844-244-3120. Within this phone call, you will get the questions you have responded to, and we are going to arrange a time to initiate services. Our crew will show up at the arranged time with all the needed materials, and will work with you through the entire process.
When you find yourself planning a process for Termite Inspection in Crest Park, CA, you'll find great reasons to prefer Star Termite Inspection. Our materials are of the very best quality, our money saving strategies are functional and efficient, and our customer support scores are unrivaled. Our company is here to help you with the greatest working experience and skills in the industry. Call 844-244-3120 when you require Termite Inspection in Crest Park, and we are going to work with you to properly carry out your project.


text:
Attractions Ontario News
Home » Attractions Ontario News » LIVE AND IN PERSON! UNIQUE…
LIVE AND IN PERSON! UNIQUE IMMERSIVE PERFORMANCES TO MAKE NORTH AMERICAN DEBUT IN TORONTO IN MARCH
Tine Elgsaether
Safe, outdoor, 'inspired' shows were a sensation in Europe
TORONTO January 14, 2021 – Following sold-out shows and rave reviews in London and Paris, C-O-N-T-A-C-T – a revolutionary experience that marries mobile technology and drama into a COVID-safeguarded performance – is scheduled to make its North American debut in Toronto in March.
The Downtown Yonge BIA is partnering with the Elgin and Winter Garden Theatre to bring the much-lauded production to Toronto. A ground-breaking Canadian innovation is that C-O-N-T-A-C-T will be available simultaneously in multiple languages, spotlighting Canada's cultural mosaic.
"Live and in person – just the words bring a spark of joy at a time when we all need something to look forward to," says Downtown Yonge Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director Mark Garner. "We are thrilled to present this show, which safely enables a return to in-person performances and provides a much-needed boost to our local economy."
Described by The Guardian in the U.K. as "an inspired piece of theatre" and "an inventive solution to the continued closure of most [playhouses]," the Toronto C-O-N-T-A-C-T shows will feature the original London production with a Canadian cast.
Entirely outdoors, the audience follows the cast along downtown streets. The performers do not speak – audio is synced with the action and played through a mobile app, enabling the audience to feel like they are reading minds, hearing the actors' inner thoughts as the story unfolds.
"Conceived during COVID-19, C-O-N-T-A-C-T both overcomes the physical restrictions of the pandemic and addresses its emotional themes, such as the challenges of isolation and the human need to connect," says original U.K. producer Katy Lipson. "We are thrilled to be sharing this breathtaking experience across the pond with a North American run premiering in Toronto."
Toronto performances are scheduled to start March 9, 2021 for a 6-week limited run, with six daily performances Thursday-Sunday, two on Mondays and Tuesdays, and four on Wednesdays.
Tickets are available at www.contact-the-show.com. Purchasers choose a specific time slot, and will receive their tickets and the link to download the app with instructions on where to go and what to do. (Tickets will be easy to exchange if necessary, recognizing the evolving situation around pandemic restrictions.)
To enhance the experience and support local businesses, take-out meals from participating restaurants may be added to the ticket purchase.
"Virtual performances have sustained theatre-lovers during the pandemic, and we are delighted to take the next step and present in-person shows again," says Beth Hanna, CEO of Ontario Heritage Trust (Elgin and Winter Garden Theatre Centre). "This is great news for people craving live entertainment, and also supports the performers, arts workers and others in the arts community hard hit by the lockdowns."
Designed specifically to ensure safety and follow public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, precautions include a maximum of 20 people at each performance, guided by staff to keep socially-distanced space as they follow the performers along the street. Everyone – including the actors – wears masks.
Notably, not a single COVID-19 infection has been traced back to the hundreds of C-O-N-T-A-C-T performances in London, Paris and other European cities.
The story: In a world where social distancing is the norm, Sarah is approached in the street by a stranger passing by, who turns out to be much more than he seems. Over 45 minutes, Sarah's life will be forever changed by this extraordinary moment of C-O-N-T-A-C-T. A beautiful story of love, loss, catharsis, and redemption.
"We were driven by the need to reconnect with our profession and with the audience," says C-O-N-T-A-C-T creator and director Samuel Sené. "We wanted to offer an artistic encounter even in the current health context, therefore we have imagined this tailored theatrical experience. To be able to share this feeling again, the one we only feel with live performance. To reunite with Theatre."
ONTARIO TOURISM RESILIENCY AWARD WINNERS
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2021 - On October 27, 2021, the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario…
Attraction of the Year Award Winner
Toronto, Ontario – This past October 27-28th, 2021, the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario hosted…
Go Small or Go Home! Little Canada Opens Its Borders on August 5
Little Canada brings full-sized fun in miniature TORONTO, ON (July 27, 2021) – Toronto's newest big…
previous post: AGO launches Virtual School Programs en français, part of dynamic winter line-up of online classes, talks and events
next post: CALLING ALL EDUCATORS AND AT-HOME LEARNERS

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
package de.cosmocode.lucene.fragments.query;

import org.junit.Test;

import de.cosmocode.lucene.LuceneQuery;

/**
 * <p> Tests all addRangeField methods without QueryModifiers from LuceneQuery.
 * These are:
 * </p>
 * <ul>
 *   <li> {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, String, String)} </li>
 *   <li> {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, int, int)} </li>
 *   <li> {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, double, double)} </li>
 * </ul>
 *
 * @author Oliver Lorenz
 */
public class AddRangeFieldFragment extends AbstractLuceneQueryTestFragment {

    /**
     * Tests {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, String, String)} with null values.
     */
    @Test(expected = IllegalStateException.class)
    public void nulls() {
        final LuceneQuery unit = unit().addRangeField(FIELD1, null, null);
        assertEquals("", unit);
    }

    /**
     * Tests {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, String, String)}.
     */
    @Test
    public void strings() {
        final LuceneQuery unit = unit().addRangeField(FIELD1, "a", "b");
        assertEquals(FIELD1 + ":[a TO b]", unit);
    }

    /**
     * Tests {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, int, int)}.
     */
    @Test
    public void ints() {
        final LuceneQuery unit = unit().addRangeField(FIELD1, 0, 4);
        assertEquals(FIELD1 + ":[0 TO 4]", unit);
    }

    /**
     * Tests {@link LuceneQuery#addRangeField(String, double, double)}.
     */
    @Test
    public void doubles() {
        final LuceneQuery unit = unit().addRangeField(FIELD1, 1.2, 1.7);
        assertEquals(FIELD1 + ":[1.2 TO 1.7]", unit);
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Nestled in historic Speightstown, St. Peter, The Gallery of Caribbean Art treats visitors to a mind-blowing excursion with a breathtaking backdrop, intricate architecture, Bajan culture and traditional cuisine.
It is certainly not a coincidence that the scenic second largest town in Barbados was chosen as home to what has now become one of the Caribbean's most prestigious art galleries, praised by international, regional and local art aficionados.
In recent years, Speightstown has undergone a renaissance of sorts. The quaint town is once again active and vibrant while still maintaining its unique colonial charm. Much of the character of this humble town can be found in its architecture and in its people.
The sidewalk is dotted with vendors offering fresh fruits and vegetables. The jetty is often bustling with fishermen unloading their fresh catch of the day. Residents can be found engaging in loud, animated and dialect conversations at the popular esplanade while friendly sales staff beckon from modern shops and restaurants. Pristine beaches also found on this side of the island offer a less crowded and busy atmosphere than on the south and west coasts.
The Gallery of Caribbean Art easily lends itself to the inimitable character of this resurgent town by adding an intriguing dimension that exposes visitors to the best of Barbados and the wider Caribbean in an unforgettable but often forgotten oasis.
A revolving annual calendar of exciting exhibitions by artists, sculptors and multi-media expressionists from Haiti and Cuba in the north to Barbados and Guyana in the south consistently reveal the enormous creativity of well known, little known and unknown Caribbean artists.
For all its similarity in style and technique, Caribbean art boasts distinctive differences between countries and cultures which easily identify the origin and extraordinarily special details of each region.
The Gallery of Caribbean Art has grown into a carefully curated treasure trove of over 120 pieces of evocative, engrossing and engaging interpretations of artistic genius reflecting every facet, hue, narrative and fascinating element of what is entirely the Caribbean.
Over the last three decades, Caribbean artists have established themselves on the global landscape as competitive forces with which to reckon. The Gallery is central to this evolution and revolution of regional art while firmly placing the Caribbean on the map in this genre.
Whether you are an art connoisseur or amateur, when visiting Barbados, your itinerary must include a visit to The Gallery of Caribbean Art—and by extension Speightstown—to immerse in a cornucopia of delightful experiences in one charming space and place.
The Gallery is always in high demand by regional artists wishing to exhibit their latest work and it is already heavily booked throughout 2018 promising yet another exciting year of visually stimulating collectables.
Stop by the Northern Business Centre, Queen's Street, Speightstown, St. Peter; weekdays from 10:00 am – 4:00 pm and Saturdays from 10:00 am – 2:00 pm where a highly trained, knowledgeable and helpful curator will make your journey a richly rewarding experience, as well as, an exclusive shopping pleasure. You are guaranteed great value and priceless memories.
For more information, visit their website at The Gallery of Caribbean Art to preview available pieces.


One classroom technology that hasn't changed very much over the years is the textbook. That is, until now. Apple is working with leading textbook publishers to create electronic editions that are interactive, engaging and loaded with eye-popping graphics. The old days of single use, tear-out worksheets at the back of a worn-out textbook will likely soon be a thing of the past. So the question of whether traditional textbooks should be replaced by devices like the iPad isn't so much a question of "if," but "when."
Paper textbooks have a long list of drawbacks. For one, they're made of paper, so they're not exactly environmentally friendly when you think about the millions of copies of each subject that must be produced. Second, educational information can change quickly, leaving many textbooks out of date and destined for the recycle bin. A book bag full of textbooks is also heavy, and studies have shown that children are increasingly suffering from back troubles and poor posture because of the weight of their backpacks.
Another argument for the use of iPads in the classroom is that children are more drawn to these devices than they are tattered, old textbooks. Like it or not, the information age is well underway and your child is more likely to know how to use a smart phone or tablet than a slide rule and protractor. Kids these days have grown up using these devices, so they're simply more comfortable and more engaged interacting with an iPad than they are a textbook. Just ask any parent who has seen their toddler try to manipulate a flat screen TV by touching the screen.


text:
Denise "Dee" A. Coyle
January 15, 1954 - August 7, 2021
Denise A Coyle, 67, went home to be with her Lord and Savior on August 7, 2021. She passed away peacefully at home. Dee is survived by her husband of 46 years, Ted; her son Mike and his wife Kelsey; her two grandchildren; and her brother Bruce. Dee taught at Fairton Christian Center Academy for 30 years. She graduated Stockton State College with a BA in Literature and Language, and enjoyed teaching in many diverse areas including English, Spanish, and mathematics. While at Fairton Christian Center she also served as Missionettes leader, and together with her husband served as youth leader and young adult leader for several years. She touched many lives and cherished the lifelong friendships and sense of family that grew through that work. One of her greatest joys in life was being Mimi to her beloved granddaughters. Dee enjoyed Bible study, reading, travel, and did extensive scrapbooking to preserve the memories of the family she loved so much. A Funeral service will be conducted on Friday, August 13, 2021 at noon in the Christy Funeral Home, 11 W. Broad Street, Millville. Family and friends will be received on Thursday evening from 6 to 8 p.m. and on Friday morning from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Interment will follow at Greenwood Memorial Park, Millville. Memories and expressions of sympathy for Denise A. Coyle may be shared on the Obituary Tribute Wall at: www.christyfuneralservice.com.
Denise A Coyle, 67, went home to be with her Lord and Savior on August 7, 2021. She passed away peacefully at home. Dee is survived by her husband of 46 years, Ted; her son Mike and his wife Kelsey; her two grandchildren; and her brother... View Obituary & Service Information
The family of Denise "Dee" A. Coyle created this Life Tributes page to make it easy to share your memories.
Denise A Coyle, 67, went home to be with her Lord and Savior...
Send flowers to the Coyle family.