14 Am. Tribal Law 17
Ho–Chunk Nation Supreme Court.
Horst JOSELLIS, Appellant,
Jennifer FIELD, Appellee.
No. SU 16–06.
Decided Jan. 23, 2017.
Order (Denying Appeal)
This matter came before the Supreme Court on December 27, 2016. Appellant Horst Josellis (hereinafter “appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal in response to a final Trial Court judgment where the Trial Court affirmed the Grievance Review Board’s (hereinafter “GRB”) decision. Order (Affirming), CV 15–19 (HCN Tr. Cct., Oct. 25, 2016).1 Chief Justice Todd R. Matha, Associate Justice Samantha C.
Skenandore, and Associate Justice Tricia A. Zunker reviewed the matter and determined the appellant failed to “articulate exactly how the lower court erred as a matter of law when considering the facts offered to that court.” HCN R.App. P. 11(b). Therefore, this appeal is denied.
Rule 11(b) of the Ho–Chunk Nation Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that “the Notice of Appeal must include a short statement of the reason or grounds for the appeal. The party filing the appeal must articulate exactly how the lower court erred as a matter of law when considering the facts offered to that court.” At issue here is whether the appellant articulated how the lower court erred in affirming the decision of the GRB.
The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal that erroneously focuses on arguing facts. Appellant does not address the applicable law other than including minimal references without explanation. The first reference to law alleges a violation of due process rights. Appellant states: “[t]he Court fails to address the Due Process requirements that the HCN Employer has to follow under HCN laws.” Notice of Appeal, SU 16–06, (Dec. 27, 2016) at 2. This is a misinterpretation of law. There exists no due process challenge since the appellant was not denied an opportunity to be heard. He first had a hearing with the GRB and then obtained review of the GRB decision through appeal to the Trial Court.
The appellant also included references to the EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT and the HO–CHUNK NATION CONSTITUTION in the final sentence of the Notice of Appeal. Id. at 4. Simply referencing laws of the Ho–Chunk Nation without explanation is not sufficient to meet the procedural requirements of HCN R.App. 11(b). The appellant must explain how that law applies and, notably, how the Trial Court misapplied the applicable law, thereby warranting appellate review. The appellant failed to do so here.
Therefore, this Court orders:
• The Notice of Appeal is denied.
14 Am. Tribal Law 17
The Notice of Appeal must be filed with 60 days of the final judgment or order. HCN R.App. P. 7b. However, the Court was closed on Monday, December 26, 2016, for a recognized holiday. See Admin. Order 16–23 (HCN Tr. Ct., Dec. 20, 2016). Therefore, this Notice of Appeal was filed timely.