# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION (2025)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Acherokee_nation%3A3898809c10bba1a5

## Record

- **Collection:** Tribal code
- **Document type:** Tribal code

## Text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION

FRANCIS UNGER,

)
Petitioner, )
)
Vv. ) CASE No. SC-2015-07 =
) & mS
CHEROKEE NATION COMPREHENSIVE, ) = %
CARE AGENCY, ) = ons,
Respondent. ) a
ay

ORDER

The Appellant filed her fourth appeal on November 7, 2024.
After review the Court finds:

1. The Cherokee Nation District Court order in CV-2014-94 dated October 28,
2024, is herenp atiimes.

S
ENTERED this |

day of April 2025

— a
oo ea Loe te
ZINC SWAN J

fo John C. Garrett, Chief Justicé

Certificate of Mailing

st
|, Kendall Bird, certify that on the | day of April 2025, | mailed, emailed, and/or
faxed a true copy of the above and foregoing to the following:

Chad Smith, chad@chadsmith.com
Gregory Calvert, gregory-calvert@cherokee.org

KBug?

Kendall Bird, Court Cletk

Cherokee Nation District Court

Francis Unger,
Plaintiff,

v. CV-14-94

Cherokee Nation Comprehensive Care Agency,
Defendant.

Order

This matter has been dismissed in large part by District Court Judge John Cripps on June
26, 2015, and in its entirety by District Court Judge Crystal Jackson on August 16, 2018 and
September 13, 2018, Presiding District Court Judge Luke Barteaux on October 26, 2021. Each
time the matter was appealed, and the Supreme Court left Count | intact.

District Court Judge John Cripps dismissed counts 2-5, and further, dismissed all claims
for damages based on there not being a waiver of sovereign immunity. Only the dismissal of count
2 was appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of count 2 based on other legal

analysis, and held that issues that were not appealed were automatically affirmed. Appeal of the

issue of monetary damages cannot be considered because there is no express waiver of sovereign
immunity and the appeal time has long since ran.
Analysis

Judge Cripps found on Page 3 Paragraph 4 of his Order filed herein on June 26, 2015, as
follows, “The Tribal Council has not waived the sovereign immunity of the CNCA and Plaintiff
cannot sue the CNCA for general damages, special damages, punitive damages or attorney’s fees.”
(Attached hereto as ‘Attachment A”)

The Supreme Court lost jurisdiction over the issue of damages on July 26, 2015, thirty (30)

days after Judge Cripps dismissed this matter on June 26, 2015, and said jurisdiction cannot be
revived. The parties had their day in court, and let their thirty (30) day, non-modifiable,
jurisdictional statute of limitations appeal period expire without appealing the specific issue.

After previous appeals, the Supreme Court left Count 1: Violation of Cherokee Nation
Constitutional Right of Due Process intact. In regards to Employee Rights, Article XII states as
follows:

No employee, who having served in a position at least one (1) year, shall be

removed from the employment of the Cherokee Nation except for cause, and only

after being afforded pre-termination due process. Provided, the right of such

employee to seek redress in the Cherokee Nation courts shall not be abridged.

The Constitution does not specifically state what relief is available to an alleged wrongfully
terminated employee. Without an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity, there is
no waiver at all.

Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common law immunity from
suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 248 U. S.
358 (1919); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U. 8. 506, 309 U. S.
512-513 (1940); Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Dept. of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 433 U. 8. 172-173
(1977). This aspect of tribal sovereignty, like all others, is subject to the superior and plenary
control of Congress. However, "without congressional authorization," the "Indian Nations are
exempt from suit." United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra at 309 U.S.

512.

It is settled that a waiver of sovereign immunity "cannot be implied, but must be

unequivocally expressed." United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392,424 U.S. 399 (1976),

quoting United

Since an employee has the right to not be “removed from the employment” without any

further explanation. The Court must look towards the rules of statutory construction. The Court is
raat an

bound to apply the plain language of the Constitution to accomplish the intent of the Constitution.
If the language is clear and unambiguous, the Court will not look to rules of construction or to
Constitutional Convention history; it will simply apply the language. The plain meaning of the
language of Article XII is simply that there must be pre-termination due process before being
removed from employment. That being said, the inverse of that plain language would be that the
relief for wrongful termination would simply to be placed back into employment. The Court would
have to bend over backwards to make Article XII unclear to the point of being able to add monetary
damages to the possible relief.

An addition of monetary damages would be an infringement upon the Citizens of Cherokee
Nation that ratified the Constitution, and further voted to not hold a constitutional convention when
said question was placed on the ballot in 2024. If the Citizens of Cherokee Nation wanted to add
monetary damages to the constitution, they would have held a constitutional convention. Further,
an addition of monetary damages would be an infringement upon the Administrative and
Legislative branches of government who have expressly given damages as a remedy, but only
through the EAPA. It is not within the Court’s power to decide the issue of monetary damages
associated with an Article XIJ claim brought directly to the District Court.

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Response to Order for Particulars (attached

hereto as “Attachment B”). Page 1, under the Heading “RELIEF REQUESTED” the

Plaintiff states “Petitioner does not request restatement.” Further, Plaintiff filed her Motion

for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2022 asking that this matter be resolved without

hearing.

The only express waiver of sovereign immunity, regarding monetary damages, that

Cherokee Nation has given involving employee termination actions stem from statutes adopted by
the Tribal Council and signed into law by the Principal Chief, such as the EAPA. The Supreme
Court expounded upon this issue in the SC-2015-07, Francis Unger v. CNCCA Opinion, filed
March 20, 2017. The Supreme Court’s opinion states that neither party should be suggesting any
definition of employee or other clause within the EAPA or elsewhere should be used in this matter
because the case was not properly brought before the EAPA, and instead was brought directly to
the District Court under Article XII. (Attached hereto as “Attachment C”’)

The Constitution gives an Employee the right to pre-termination due process, but does not
expressly give an employee the right to a pre-termination “hearing”. Such hearings as Employees
have come accustomed to are only provided for within statutes such as the EAPA, which the
Supreme Court has previously stated does not apply to the case at hand because Count One wasn’t
filed properly through the EAPA process and instead was filed directly with the District Court.

Conclusion

The matter is dismissed as moot. The Cherokee Nation has not unequivocally
expressed a waiver of sovereign immunity in regards to monetary damages brought directly
to the District Court based on an Article XII claim, and Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her
only viable requested relief on June 26, 2024.

It is so ordered.

Dated: /0 [2 5/24

T Luke Barteaux ~

Presiding District Court Judge
Cherokee Nation

Certificate of Delivery

ba)
I certify that on this 2s day of Cobybe- , 2024, a true and correct copy

of this Final Order and Opinion was sent by email and/or mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Chadwick Smith

PO Box 11324

Palm Desert, CA 92255
chad@chadsmith.com

Chad Harsha

Gregory Calvert

Office of the Attorney General
Cherokee Nation

PO Box 1533

Tahlequah, OK 74465-1533
chad-harsha@cherokee.org
gregory-calvert@cherokee.org

JEL

District Gourt Clerk ©

- 7 ah

i ahnen PS ox.

=
en
qj
FRANCIS UNGER, =
Plaintiff, ai me
vS. CV-2014-94 ;
: BSee =
CHEROKEE NATION “Slo BB.
COMPREHENSIVE CARE AGENCY, > 2 *
Defendant.

ORDER
COMES NOW, before me, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed March 27,
2014, and the Plaintiff's April 8, 2014, Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court heard
argument on these motions on July 2, 2014, and took its ruling under advisement. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and denies the

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Plaintiff was terminated from her position at the Cherokee Nation
Comprehensive Care Agency ("CNCA") on or about January 8, 2014.

Following the cessation of employment, Plaintiff brought this action alleging:

1. Violation of Cherokee Nation Constitutional Right of Due Process

2. Violation of 51 CNCA § 1011
3. Violation of Section 5(H)(4) of the LA 03-04
4. Violation of policy CEC-HR-500.04

5. Declaratory Judgment
On March 27, 2014, the CNCA answered the Plaintiffs first cause of action and
denied the Plaintiffs allegations. The CNCA argued that it was otherwise immune from
suit, and moved to dismiss the remaining causes of action in the Plaintiffs Complaint. On
April 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court find that Plaintiffis entitled
to a summary judgment that she was wrongfully discharged from employment.

L FINDINGS OF FACT

1) Plaintiff Francis Unger was employed by the Cherokee Nation
comprehensive Care Agency for more than one year prior to her termination on January
8,2014.

2) The CNCA was created by the Tribal Council under 63 C.N.C.A. §101 et
seq. and is part of the Executive Branch of the Cherokee Nation.

3) The CNCA's organic act gives the Board of Directors responsibility for
governing CNCA. The Board of Directors are appointed by the Principal Chief and
confirmed by the Tribal Council.

4) The CNCA has statutory authorization to maintain independent management
and separate personnel policies.

5) The Employee Administrative Procedures Act excludes "employees of
specialized authorities and entities created by the legislature..." from the definition of

employee found at 51 C.N.C.A. § 1003(7).
Il. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1) No employee, who having served in a position at least one (1) year, shall be
removed from employment of the Cherokee Nation except for cause, and only after being
afforded pre-termination due process. See Cherokee Nation Constitution (2003), Article
See also In re: Appeal of McAlvain, SC-12-02; In re: Appeal of Ragsdale, SC-12 04; In
re: Appeal of Rusco, SC-12-05; and In re: Appeal of Dreadfulwater, SC-12-06.

2) The Plaintiffis entitled to all protections provided employees of the Cherokee
Nation under the Constitution.

3) The CNCA isa specialized authority and entity created by the legislature, and

the Employee Administrative Procedures Act does not apply to CNCA employees.

5) The Cherokee Nation is a Federally Recognized Indian Nation retaining the

inherent right to preclude lawsuits under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the
inherent right to waive, and grant authority to waive sovereign immunity with limitations
as to time, place, manner, and subject; provided that such waiver must be made exclusively
by Legislative Act or Resolution. See "Sovereign Immunity Act", LA-23-04, Section
5(a)-©.

6) Rule 124 of the District Court Rules and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure set out the particular requirements which must be satisfied by a motion for
summary judgment.

7) The Court shall grant summary judgment only if the moving party shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.

8) In regard to summary judgment, the Court's task is not to resolve disputed
issues of fact, but to determine whether there exist any factual issues to he tried,

9) The party moving for Summary Judgment bears the initial burden of
identifying evidence that demonstrates the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.

10) Summary Judgment materials, including pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file are viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.

11) The Plaintiff provided no summary judgment materials to this Court and has
failed to show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that Movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff and other employees of the CNCA are not subject to the protections
provided for in the Employee Administrative Procedures Act and Plaintiff has not
identified any other waiver of sovereign immunity. The CNCA answered Count I of the
Plaintiffs Complaint which shall survive this Order, but all other counts are hereby

dismissed. The Plaintiff failed to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and
the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied.

ORDERED THIS 25" DAY OF JUNE , 2015.

JGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
Certificate of Delivery

I certify that on the 26 day of June, 2015, I emailed a true and complete copy of the
foregoing Order entered this date in CV-2014-94 , and mailed same by US. first class mail,
to the following:

Chadwick Smith, Attorney for Plaintiff, chad@chadsmith.com
22902 S 494 Road
Tahlequah, OK 74464

Sara Hill, Assistant Attorney General sara-hill@cherokee.org
Cherokee Nation Attorney General Office

P.O. Box 948

Tahlequah, OK 74465

tua

Cherokee Nation District Court

SHachment B*

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION

FRANCIS UNGER )
Plaintiff.
v. ; Case No. CV 2014-94
CHEROKEE NATION COMPREHENSIVE ‘
CARE AGENCY )
Defendant.

RESPONSE TO ORDER FOR PARTICULARS

Petitioner Unger responds to this Court’s November 28, 2023, Order for Particulars of
Petitioner’s Requested Relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Unger is 71-year-old former employee of
CNCCA who served as a CNCCA nurse and CNCCA denied her Article XI] pre-termination due
process ten years ago as of January 8, 2024. Unger has persisted in vindicating her constitutional

rights which has been affirmed by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court in three appeals and a

Petition for Mandamus.

_ Petitioner does not request restatement. _

Petitioner requests back wages:in the amount of $123,989 as computed and lost medical
benefits in the amount of $8,500 shown on Exhibit “Lost Wages Spreadsheet.”

The petitioner was wrongfully discharged January 8, 2014, and retired in 2021. Exhibit
“A” shows that her income as of the date of her termination was $61,305.14 and she was entitled
fringe benefits including health insurance. The first column titled “Year” is the year for her
respective income beginning January 2014. The second column titled “Income” shows her income ,

from all sources after her discharge including unemployment insurance and subsequent

employment. The third column titled “Social Security” shows her receipt of social security income
for each of the applicable years. The fourth column titled “Total” shows her total income by year
from all sources. The fifth column titled “COLA” shows her annual income if she was still
employed by CNCCA increased each year for Cost of Living Adjustment at 3% per year. The
sixth column titled “Lost Wages” shows her income from CNECA if she were not terminated less
her actual income for each year; this column represents her lost wages for each year. The seventh
column titled “Interest Lost” shows interest at 3% year from the year of the lost wages until 2024.
Column 8 is titled “Lost of Use” and shows the value of lost wages with COLA and interest and
recouping thém in 2024. In other words, the “Loss of Use” column adds interest for loss of use
of the lost wages. The numbers in Exhibit “Lost Wages Spreadsheet” come from 1040 Income
Tax Returns. Column 9 is the cost of health insurance lost when CNCCA terminated Unger and
she had to purchase health insurance out of pocket.

ATTORNEY FEES AND COST:

Over ten years of litigation covering three successful appeals and one Mandamus in the
Cherokee Nation Supreme Court, Petitioner’s attorney has spent 305 hours based on detailed
attomey billing records which represents 30 billable hours per year. The Cherokee Nation
Supreme held in Jn re McAlvain, SC 12-02 (Nov. 4, 2015) that Petitioner’s attorney’s reasonable
hourly fee was $250/hour for work in four similar wrongful discharge cases. Petitioner should be
awarded $75,655 and interest on attorney’s fees at 10% of the billable hours totaling $7,565.
Therefore, Petitioner’s attorney is entitled to $75,655 in fees and $7,565 in interest for a total of
$83,220.

Petitioner’s court filing fees are $150 for the District Court and $200 for the Supreme

Court.
SUMMARY:

The petitioner seeks $123,938 in lost wages, $8,500 in lost health benefits, $83,220 in
attomey fees, and $350 in court costs.

Even though in its 2014 Answer to her Complaint, CNCCA acknowledged that Unger was
entitled to her Article XII constitutional right, it has worked to. deny her that right for the duration
of this litigation, It is particularly disturbing that on February 18, 2019, Assistant Attorney General
Chrissi Nimmo told the Cherokee Nation Health Committee that Unger was a terminated PACE
(CNCCA) employee and “PACE employees are Cherokee Nation employees for the purpose of
constitutional protections of ‘for cause’ status and the requirement for pre and post termination
due process.” Nimmo further told the Council, “because of this (Unger’s), court case it
(CNCCA)says their employees are entitled to constitutional employee protection before they fire
someone, they work with our HR office and our AG office to review that termination packet before
they administer it. The way we do it for any other Cherokee Nation employee. ...” See Transcript
of Cherokee Nation Health Committee February 18, 2019. Even after the Attorney General told
the Council it had the duty to defend Unger’s Article XII rights, CNCCA continued to fight against
Unger’s efforts to vindicate that right and be awarded damages.

This wrong to. Unger has gone long enough. Yes, ten years is enough! This Court should
grant the relief requested Kerein- back wages, attorneys’ fees and cost.

Respectfully submitted this 2" day of January 2024.

{ss/
Chadwick Smith
CNBA. #08
P.O. Box 11324
Palm Desert, CA 92255

chad@chadsmith.com
918 453 1707

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Response was mailed this 24 day of
January 2024 to the following:

{ss/

Gregory Calvert

Assistant Attorney General
Cherokee Nation

P.O. Box 1533

Tahlequah, OK. 74465

Gregory-calvert@cherokee.org
Frances Unger:

Unger’s salary was:$62,305.24-on 1-8-2014

4 2 3, Ay
Year >.’ Income So¢ Séc Total
2014 = “15,501. : 0 15,504
2015 = 63,328. a 63,328 .
2016 70;067 0: “70,067
2017 55,755 0: ‘55,755
2018 45,853 17974. 63,827
2019 46,471 29741 76,212
2020 31,106 '27991.2 59,097
Retired August: 2021 6652.79 18;908.20 25,561-
Column Totals 334,734 ‘94614.4 429,348

Total lost wages including‘COLA and Interest
Total lost health benefits
Total lost wages and.betiefits

‘Notes

‘Column Listhe year beginning January. after:dischange

Column 2'includes, unemployment insurance and earned income
Column 3includes social.security

Column:4:is Ungér's‘total income from all sources baséd:on tax records.
Column 5 is Unger CNCCA wage increased for-cost.of living.at 3% ,
Column 6 is COLA-wages léss total income(columns 6-5)

Column 7 is interest at 3% on lost wages

Column.8 is lost wages plus interest at 3%

Column $ is medical insurance cost. after termination

5 6

COLA - Lost Wages:
63,114 47,613.00
68,007 1,679
66,957 0
68,965. 13,210.00
71,034 7,207.00
73,443 0:00
75,646 16,548\80

51,423 25,862:

535,589. 112,119.81,

Interest.Lost
7,557.56
239

1,032:00
450.00

776.00:

B16.

10,870.56

8.

Loss'of. Use
55,170.56
1,918
o
14,242.00
8605
0
17,324.80
26,678

123,938.37

$123,938.37

9

Lost Méd Benefits
‘6,000
2,500

8,500
$132,438.37
2 “A bach men t eS

IN THE: SUPREME:COURT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION

FRANGIS'UNGER, ) ase 2
intiff/Appellant, ) San OO

: ) 285 =.

v } Case No: SC-2015-G722 =

) eu ™

GHEROKEE-NATION:‘COMPREHENSIVE ) 2 8
.GENCY )
Defendants/Appellee. }

OPINION
Now.on this rae) day of March, 2017, the Petition for appellate review. of the
District, Court's. Judgment‘filed on Jurie 26, 2015, by the ‘Honorable. Jotin T.. Cripps, in
District Court-Case, No CV-2014-94, denying Plaintiff's. Motion for Summary. Judgment
and. granting: Defendant's. Motion. to. Dismiss as. to Cause of Action 2, 3, 4, & 5 of
Plaintiff's complaint-comés. on for réview.
History of the Case
Of March.7, 2014; Francis Unger, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging five. (5).causes

of action, as follows:
Niolationi.of Chérokee Nation Constitutional:Right of Due Process :

- Violation of 51 CNCA 71011

Violation. of the 'Act(Cherokee, Nation Comprehensive Care Agency Organic Act)

Violation: of Agency-Policy
Declaratory: Judgment

The: Defendant/Appéllee filed jits Answer combined with a Mation. to. Dismiss on
March 27;2014. The Answer-was to the-first.cause-of action and the Motion:to Dismiss
was to causes of action 2-5 based’ on Lack, of Subjéct, Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to

District Gourt-Rule 123(4):and:(4)-

$6-15:07 Page 1 of 5
Then on-April-8; 2014,. Unger filed an Objection the. Motion to Dismiss corhbined with:
her Motion for Summary Judgment.

Qn June 26; 2015, the District: Court entered its order-granting Defendant/Appellee’s:
Motion'‘to Dismiss as. to causes of action two(2), three(3), four(4) and five(5) and
denying Plaintiff/Appeliant’s: Motion for Summary Judgment.

Standard'of Review
This:matter being a. question of law, the. Court will:teview the issue-de.ndvo.
Appellant Record.

The -Plaintiff/Appellant timely filed its appeal with this Court on. July 20;- 2015.
‘The only:issue. alleged: on-appeal-is the dismissal of the second-causé-of:action, which:
is: stated-in:Appellant’s Brief:

“Whether the ‘Agency's employees are protected by the Employee. Appeals
Procedure Act ("EAPA’) 51 CNGA 7 et al.?"' Therefore, the dismissal as to. the Third,
Fourth, and, Fifthi-caiisés of action afd: the deniai.of the: Motion for Summary: Judgment:
will Stand and not be addresséd' by this Court.

Opinion”
514 CNCA § 1001 et:séq. sets out an expedited and. simplified procedure within
which:employees,. who: fall within ‘the. guidelines, and..definitions established bythe

council within -the Act-.can appeal their termination.? One of these defititions as

» The. ‘Agency: being: ‘the. Gherokee Nation Comprehensive.Care Agency.
; Since: the initial ‘enactment. of ‘this Act in 1996;. the 1999: Constitution substontiily changed.

54-CNCA1004 et seq..in: cases, where the act is ‘applicable. The: Court would urge: ia council to:
update.and clarify this Act :

SC-15-07 Page 2of 5
established by-the:council is the ‘thrust of this appeal “who. is-considered an: “employee”
for purpésés of this.Act?” “What-neither. party addrésses is the fact'that the EAPA sets
out an appéal procedure that is wholly outside the jurisdiction the. Cherokee. Nation
District Court: There are.3 stages of.review and/ot:appeal pursuant to the EAPA,. none:
of which involve thé Cherokee Nation District Court! The instant ¢asé' is. an appeal.
‘brotight fromn a. case. originating in-the District Court. As: much time as the parties: have:
-spent focusing: both: their District Court Motions.and the Appeal Briefs‘on arguing: about
the definition of employee «and whether the Cherokee Nation Comprehensive Care
Agency is-an-entity or corporation. of the Cherokee Nation or a specialized authority or
entity; these issues ‘are irrelevant bécause this case is. not. being. brought under. the
procedures as established in the EAPA. The-definition of who-is an. employee for
.purposes. of the EAPA. as defined in 51 CNCA § 1004 A. is specifically limited to
appeals brought pursuant to thie specific procedures set-out in the EAPA. This is not an
appéal brought pursuant.to. the. EAPA: and the: District Court has, no jurisdiction to cases
“brought purstiant to:the EAPA. ‘EAPA cases originate with the: Employee Appeals
‘Board:and‘if-appealed, come before this: Court.
Conclusion.

While.the Court agrees: with the ultimate outcome of the trial.couft in regards to.
-the: sustaining: ofthe Motion fo. Dismiss Appellant's.Second Cause of Action, the Court
does not agree withthe rationale within which jit was reached. The Second ‘Cause of
action. should be dismissed for the sole reason that the Cherokee. Nation District Court
does not. have jurisdiction:in appeals brought pursuant to:the procedures set forth in: 51

“CNCA § 1001-ét seq,

SC-15-07 Page 3.0f §
This being the only issue on: appeal, the dismissal .of causes of action three (3),

four (4):and five (5) will stand, as: will the denial of the Motion for summary. judgment:

The® Court: is making no opinions regarding those issues. Since they have fidt been

brotight before the Court:on.appeal.

REMAND to. the District Court for findings consistent with this ‘Opinion.

8C15-07

ean Bobbi : Justice
Cet”

John. ¢. “Garrett Chief Justice: RG

a Icoxen, Justice

‘Angela Jones, Justide:

Terre fesse

yan pis, Justice

Page 4.0f.5°
Certifi cate. of | Mailing

i; Kendall Bird ,:certify that on: the ad... day. of March,’2017, | mailed, emailed
and/or faxed:atrue copy: ofthe above and foregoing to the following:

: a : 1 @ct sdsmith. com
‘Ghad:Harsha, chad- harsha@cherokee: org
Sara: Hill; -sara-hill@cherdkee: Org

KBrid/,

Kendall Bird; CourtClerk

$C°15-07 Page.5-of 5°

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Acherokee_nation%3A3898809c10bba1a5. Public record. Not legal advice.