15Jan
Within the ruling, Pitkin rejected the tribe’s claims that their division’s actions had been “an work to circumvent the defenses of tribal sovereign immunity” and “an affront to tribal sovereignty.”
Within the ruling, Pitkin rejected the tribe’s claims that their division’s actions had been “an work to circumvent the defenses of tribal sovereign immunity” and “an affront to tribal sovereignty.” Not only did bank regulators adequately reveal the loan that is tribal’ actions violated Connecticut banking statutes, but Pitkin penned, “in my view of the legislation regarding tribal sovereignty and tribal opposition from suit, the unit in addition has made sufficient allegations to ascertain its jurisdiction over individuals.” (more…)
