Legal Research And Litigation Development Project

$10,000 FIXED PRICE PROJECT Seeking Federal Indian Law Attorney, Federal Litigator, Appellate Attorney, Treaty Rights Researcher, or Legal Research Team to Determine How to Obtain a Court Decision on Ownership and Jurisdiction of the Skokomish River in Washington State I am looking for someone to take on a serious, high value legal research and litigation development project involving one of the most important unresolved river ownership and public access disputes in Washington State: who legally owns, controls, and has jurisdiction over the disputed reach of the Skokomish River. This project is not about politics. It is not about internet arguments. It is not about writing an angry letter. It is about law, treaties, history, federal jurisdiction, tribal sovereign immunity, state authority, public access, fisheries management, property rights, navigability, and whether a court can be forced to finally answer a question that government agencies have avoided answering clearly for years. The contract value is $10,000 fixed price. The goal is to hire an attorney, legal researcher, or legal research team capable of producing a complete litigation roadmap and, if legally supportable, draft pleadings that could be reviewed and filed by licensed counsel. The objective is simple: Get a real legal determination on who owns, controls, or has jurisdiction over the disputed Skokomish River reach. I do not need the final answer to favor the State of Washington. I do not need the final answer to favor recreational fishermen. I do not need the final answer to oppose the Skokomish Tribe. If the law says the Skokomish Tribe owns the river, then I want a court to say that clearly. If the law says the State of Washington owns the riverbed, then I want a court to say that clearly. If the answer is split, conditional, dependent on location, dependent on navigability, dependent on treaty interpretation, or dependent on federal trust status, then I want that explained clearly and legally. What I do not want is the current situation where agencies point at each other, the public loses access, recreational fisheries disappear, state funded hatchery production supports fish that the general public cannot access, and no court has clearly determined the ownership and jurisdiction issue in a way ordinary citizens can rely on. This is a request for serious legal work. BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE The Skokomish River is located in Mason County, Washington. The river has major historical, cultural, fisheries, treaty, and public access significance. The Skokomish Indian Tribe is a federally recognized tribe. The Tribe’s reservation was established under the Treaty of Point No Point in 1855. Like other Stevens Treaty tribes, the Skokomish Tribe reserved treaty fishing rights. Treaty fishing rights in Washington have been litigated extensively through the Boldt decision and the continuing United States v. Washington proceedings. This project is not asking someone to relitigate whether tribes have treaty fishing rights. They do. The issue here is different. The issue is whether the disputed reach of the Skokomish River itself, including the riverbed and full width of the river, is legally within the Skokomish Reservation and held in trust for the Tribe, or whether the riverbed belongs to the State of Washington as a navigable waterway or otherwise remains subject to state ownership and public access rights. This dispute affects recreational fishing access, state fisheries management, public use, enforcement, and whether Washington citizens can fish a public river that has historically supported public fisheries. THE CORE DISPUTE The Skokomish Tribe has taken the position that the disputed reach of the Skokomish River lies within the reservation boundary and that the riverbed is held in trust for the Tribe. The Department of the Interior issued Solicitor Opinion M-37034 in 2016, titled Boundary of the Skokomish Reservation along the Skokomish River. That opinion concluded, in substance, that the reservation boundary includes the Skokomish River and that the United States holds the riverbed in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe appears to rely heavily on that opinion. The State of Washington, through WDFW Director Kelly Susewind, later challenged that opinion and asked the Department of the Interior to reverse it or withdraw it. WDFW argued that the opinion was factually and legally deficient and that historical evidence supported a different boundary interpretation. This creates a major legal conflict: The federal Solicitor’s Opinion supports the Tribe’s position. WDFW has publicly disputed that opinion. Recreational fishermen remain shut out. The public does not have a clear court ruling. The agencies appear unwilling or unable to force a final judicial determination. WHY THIS MATTERS TO RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN The practical result is that recreational anglers have effectively lost access to fisheries connected to this river. The Skokomish River has historically been an important salmon river. Hatchery production, state management, and public fishery expectations have all existed around this system. The public pays fishing license fees. Washington taxpayers fund state fish and wildlife operations. State hatchery infrastructure and fisheries programs are funded through public money, legislative appropriations, federal funds, license revenue, and related public resources. Yet recreational fishermen have been denied meaningful access to fish returning to or produced for this system. This creates a serious public accountability issue: If the Tribe owns the river and has exclusive jurisdiction, then agencies should say that clearly and the public should understand what that means. If the State owns the riverbed or retains authority over the fishery, then WDFW should not simply avoid the issue. If hatchery production is paid for in whole or part with state or public funds, but the public cannot access the fishery, that should be legally examined. If state agencies are using the unresolved boundary dispute as a reason to keep recreational fisheries closed, that should be examined. If the Tribe has used its position in co management or North of Falcon negotiations to pressure the State by withholding agreement unless the State avoids a Skokomish recreational fishery, that should be researched and documented carefully. I want the researcher to investigate whether recreational fisheries have been effectively held hostage through the annual co management process, North of Falcon negotiations, Letters of Agreement, or other state tribal fishery planning documents. This must be researched objectively. Do not assume bad faith. Do not assume the Tribe is wrong. Do not assume WDFW is right. Research the facts, documents, agreements, communications, and legal authorities. THE TREATY LAW CONTEXT The Skokomish Tribe’s treaty rights arise from the Treaty of Point No Point. The treaty reserved rights to fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations, in common with citizens of the territory, similar to other Stevens Treaties. The Boldt decision and subsequent United States v. Washington litigation interpreted treaty fishing rights in Washington and established the framework for tribal and non tribal allocation. The selected researcher must explain: What rights the Treaty of Point No Point reserved. What rights were ceded. What land was reserved. How the reservation boundary was described. Whether the treaty language included the river. Whether historical maps, field notes, surveys, and federal records support a north bank boundary, a river centerline boundary, or full river inclusion. Whether treaty fishing rights are being conflated with land ownership. Whether a treaty right to fish in a river is legally different from ownership of the riverbed. Whether a reservation boundary including a river creates exclusive tribal control over that river. Whether navigability changes the ownership analysis. Whether equal footing doctrine principles apply. Whether federal trust status changes the analysis. Whether the United States ever clearly reserved the riverbed for the Tribe. Whether the State of Washington acquired title to the riverbed at statehood. Whether subsequent federal actions could defeat state title. Whether the Tribe’s position depends on treaty interpretation, executive action, reservation survey, federal trust status, or all of the above. THE 2016 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SOLICITOR OPINION The 2016 DOI Solicitor Opinion M-37034 is central to this dispute. The selected researcher must perform a deep legal analysis of that opinion. Questions to answer: Was M-37034 a binding legal opinion inside the Department of the Interior? Was it binding on the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Was it binding on WDFW? Was it binding on Washington courts? Was it binding on federal courts? Was it merely advisory? Did it constitute final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act? Has any court reviewed it? Has any court cited it? Has any party challenged it? Has DOI reaffirmed it? Has DOI withdrawn it? Has DOI modified it? Did DOI respond to WDFW’s 2019 request to withdraw it? What historical documents did DOI rely on? What documents did DOI omit? Was the administrative record complete? Did the opinion rely on correct treaty interpretation principles? Did it correctly apply Indian canon rules of construction? Did it properly analyze navigability? Did it properly analyze ownership of riverbeds? Did it properly analyze reservation boundaries? Did it properly analyze statehood and title? Could it be challenged today? If not directly, could a later agency action relying on it be challenged? WDFW’S 2019 RESPONSE In 2019 WDFW Director Kelly Susewind sent a letter asking the Department of Interior to reverse or withdraw M-37034. WDFW reportedly argued that the opinion was factually and legally deficient. This letter is important because it shows that the State of Washington itself did not simply accept the DOI opinion as correct. The researcher must locate, obtain, and analyze: The complete Susewind letter. All attachments. All exhibits. All legal memoranda. All cited historical documents. All referenced maps. All referenced survey records. All referenced General Land Office materials. The Gail Thompson report. The Douglas Littlefield report. The Edwin Eells correspondence. Any follow up communications. Any DOI response. Any BIA response. Any Governor’s Office involvement. Any Attorney General’s Office involvement. Any WDFW internal legal analysis. Any WDFW communications with the Tribe. Any WDFW communications with DOI. Any WDFW communications with BIA. Any WDFW communications with NOAA. Any WDFW communications with the United States Department of Justice. Any WDFW communications during North of Falcon related to Skokomish access, river ownership, or fishery closures. THE SKOKOMISH TRIBE’S POSITION The researcher must also fairly explain the Skokomish Tribe’s legal position. The Tribe appears to believe that the disputed reach of the river lies within the reservation boundary and that the United States holds the riverbed in trust for the Tribe. The researcher must identify the strongest legal basis for the Tribe’s position. This should include: Treaty language. Reservation boundary descriptions. Historical federal actions. Survey evidence supporting the Tribe. DOI Solicitor Opinion M-37034. Tribal constitutional jurisdiction language. Prior court cases involving the Skokomish Tribe. United States v. Washington subproceedings. Cases involving primary rights. Cases involving Hood Canal. Cases involving the Tribe’s regulatory or exclusionary rights. Cases involving the Treaty of Point No Point. Cases involving riverbed ownership on reservations. Cases involving navigable waters inside reservations. Cases involving federal reservation of submerged lands. Cases involving Indian canons of construction. This project must not be one sided. I want the strongest version of the Tribe’s legal argument and the strongest version of the State’s legal argument. THE STATE’S POSITION The State’s position appears to be that DOI’s 2016 opinion was wrong and that historical documents support a boundary that does not include the full river. The researcher must identify whether the State claims: Ownership of the riverbed. Regulatory authority. Public access rights. Fishery management authority. Navigability based ownership. Some combination of these. The researcher must identify whether the State has ever taken formal legal action to enforce its position. If not, explain why. Did WDFW refuse to disclaim ownership? Did WDFW seek withdrawal of DOI’s opinion? Did WDFW continue to avoid opening the fishery? Did WDFW decide it lacked authority? Did WDFW decide the legal risk was too high? Did WDFW consider litigation? Did the Washington Attorney General’s Office advise against litigation? Has the Governor’s Office weighed in? Has the Department of Natural Resources weighed in? Has the Department of Ecology weighed in? Has the Attorney General issued any opinion? Has any state agency made a final legal determination? AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS ALREADY CONTACTED OR RELEVANT TO CONTACT The background includes communications or attempted communications with multiple agencies and officials. The researcher should assume that many government entities have avoided taking a definitive position. Agencies and offices to research include: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington Attorney General’s Office. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Washington Governor’s Office. Department of the Interior. Office of the Solicitor. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. NOAA Fisheries. United States Department of Justice. United States Coast Guard. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Local Mason County officials. The researcher should determine who has authority to decide what. Specific questions: Can WDFW open a fishery if the Tribe objects? Can WDFW open a fishery if DOI says the riverbed is held in trust? Can the State challenge DOI’s opinion? Can a private citizen force the State to assert its claimed ownership? Can a private citizen challenge state inaction? Can a private citizen challenge federal inaction? Can a private citizen obtain declaratory relief without suing the Tribe directly? Can federal agencies refuse to weigh in? Can a court compel a decision? Can a court decide ownership without the Tribe as a party? Can the Tribe be considered an indispensable party under Rule 19? Would tribal sovereign immunity prevent the case from proceeding if the Tribe is indispensable? PUBLIC RECORDS AND FOIA WORK NEEDED This project should include a records strategy. Public records and FOIA requests should target: DOI records after M-37034. DOI response to WDFW’s 2019 withdrawal request. BIA records relying on M-37034. Solicitor’s Office internal records. Administrative record for M-37034. Communications between DOI and Skokomish Tribe. Communications between DOI and WDFW. Communications between DOI and Washington Attorney General. Communications between BIA and Skokomish Tribe. Communications between BIA and WDFW. WDFW communications regarding Skokomish River fishery closures. WDFW communications regarding ownership. WDFW communications regarding litigation risk. WDFW communications with the Attorney General. WDFW communications with North of Falcon participants. WDFW communications with the Skokomish Tribe. WDFW communications about Letters of Agreement. WDFW communications about whether Skokomish Tribe would refuse to sign co management agreements if the State opened a recreational Skokomish fishery. Hatchery funding records. Hatchery production records. Budget records. License fee allocation records. Records showing whether state money, federal money, or license money funds hatchery production tied to the Skokomish system. HATCHERY FUNDING AND PUBLIC ACCESS ISSUE A key issue is whether public funds are used to support hatchery production connected to a system where the public has been denied fishing opportunity. The researcher must identify: Which hatcheries produce fish for the Skokomish River or connected fisheries. Who owns the hatchery facilities. Who operates them. What funds support them. Whether state general fund money is used. Whether fishing license revenue is used. Whether federal money is used. Whether tribal money is used. Whether hatchery production was intended to support recreational harvest. Whether recreational fishermen lost access to fish they helped fund. Whether WDFW has legal obligations to provide reasonable fishing opportunity when hatchery production is publicly funded. Whether WDFW can continue funding production while denying public access. Whether any statutes, budget provisos, or legislative materials discuss public benefit. Whether there is any claim based on taxpayer standing, license holder standing, administrative law, or state constitutional principles. FISHERIES HELD HOSTAGE ISSUE The researcher must investigate whether the Skokomish River recreational fishery has been blocked because of tribal refusal to agree during co management negotiations. This is not to be assumed. It must be proven or disproven through records. Research: North of Falcon records. Letters of Agreement. Co manager communications. WDFW internal emails. Tribal communications if available. Commission briefing materials. Fish Program briefing materials. Public comments. Director level communications. Attorney General communications. Determine whether: The Tribe has refused to sign broader agreements if WDFW opens a Skokomish River recreational fishery. WDFW has avoided opening the river to protect other fisheries. WDFW has admitted this publicly or internally. The State has legal authority to proceed anyway. The State has declined due to litigation risk. The State has declined due to fear of losing other fisheries agreements. The State has declined due to conservation reasons. The State has declined because of ownership uncertainty. The researcher should separate facts from allegations. If the documents show the Tribe has used co management leverage to prevent state recreational fisheries, explain the legal significance. If the documents do not support that, say so clearly. POTENTIAL LITIGATION PATHWAYS TO RESEARCH The researcher must analyze every possible route to get a court decision. 1. Direct lawsuit against the Skokomish Tribe Analyze tribal sovereign immunity. Can the Tribe be sued directly? Has the Tribe waived immunity? Has Congress abrogated immunity? Does any exception apply? Is there an immovable property exception? Does Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren help or hurt? Could a quiet title or boundary action proceed? Would the case be dismissed before reaching merits? 2. Lawsuit against tribal officials Research whether prospective declaratory or injunctive relief can be sought against individual tribal officials acting outside lawful authority. Analyze Ex parte Young style theories. Analyze Ninth Circuit law. Analyze whether this would really be treated as a suit against the Tribe. Analyze whether tribal officials could be sued for threatening enforcement against non tribal fishermen on land or water allegedly outside tribal jurisdiction. 3. Lawsuit against Department of Interior or BIA Analyze whether M-37034 is final agency action. Analyze whether any later federal action relied on M-37034. Analyze APA jurisdiction. Analyze statute of limitations. Analyze standing. Analyze redressability. Analyze whether a court could order DOI to reconsider or withdraw the opinion. Analyze whether inaction after WDFW’s 2019 request can be challenged. 4. Lawsuit against WDFW or State of Washington Analyze whether a recreational angler can challenge WDFW’s refusal to open the fishery. Analyze whether WDFW has made a final agency decision. Analyze whether state administrative law applies. Analyze whether mandamus is available. Analyze whether declaratory judgment is available. Analyze whether WDFW can be forced to assert the State’s ownership position. Analyze whether the State has a public trust obligation. Analyze whether navigable waters doctrine creates enforceable public rights. Analyze whether license holders have standing. 5. Declaratory judgment action Analyze whether a declaratory judgment action can determine ownership or jurisdiction without directly suing the Tribe. Identify required underlying cause of action. Analyze federal question jurisdiction. Analyze indispensable party issues. 6. Quiet Title Act Analyze whether the Quiet Title Act applies. If the United States claims trust title for the Tribe, can anyone sue the United States? Does the Indian lands exception bar the case? Are there any exceptions? Can the State sue? Can a private citizen sue? Can adjacent landowners sue? Could the State be a necessary plaintiff? 7. United States v. Washington Research whether the issue can be raised in the continuing Boldt case. Can a private citizen intervene? Can a fishing organization intervene? Can WDFW raise it? Can the United States raise it? Can a tribe raise it? Has this issue already been raised? Are there subproceedings involving Skokomish River ownership or boundary? What procedural requirements apply? 8. State court route Could a state court decide any portion of the dispute? Would federal law preempt it? Would tribal sovereign immunity bar it? Would the United States be indispensable? Would removal to federal court occur? 9. Navigability and public trust theory Analyze whether the Skokomish River is navigable for title. Analyze whether Washington acquired the riverbed at statehood. Analyze whether the public trust doctrine applies. Analyze whether recreational fishing access is protected. Analyze whether public navigation rights exist even if the riverbed is trust land. Analyze whether the Coast Guard, Army Corps, or state navigability determinations matter. 10. Hatchery funding and license holder theory Analyze whether publicly funded hatchery production creates any enforceable rights. Analyze whether license holders have standing. Analyze whether WDFW has statutory duties to maximize fishing opportunity. Analyze whether state funding without access creates any claim. Analyze whether legislative intent matters. RULE 19 AND INDISPENSABLE PARTY ISSUE This is likely one of the most important legal questions. If the Skokomish Tribe cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, but the Tribe is a necessary and indispensable party to any ownership determination, the case may be dismissed. The researcher must deeply analyze: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Tribal sovereign immunity cases. Boundary disputes where a tribe was absent. Quiet title disputes involving Indian lands. Cases where courts allowed claims to proceed without a tribe. Cases where courts dismissed because the tribe was indispensable. Whether the United States can adequately represent tribal trust interests. Whether the State can litigate without the Tribe. Whether declaratory relief can be framed narrowly enough to avoid Rule 19 dismissal. STANDING ANALYSIS Research possible plaintiffs: Recreational angler who has historically fished or attempted to fish the Skokomish River. Fishing guide. License holder. Local business harmed by closure. Fishing organization. Conservation or access organization. Adjacent landowner. State taxpayer. County resident. Public access advocate. Determine which plaintiff has the strongest standing. Analyze: Injury in fact. Causation. Redressability. Generalized grievance problems. Taxpayer standing limits. License holder standing. Recreational use standing. Economic injury. Loss of access. Lost fishing opportunity. Threat of enforcement. Need for an actual attempted access incident. Whether plaintiff should attempt to fish and receive citation or threat before suing. Whether that creates risk. Whether pre enforcement review is possible. CASE LAW TO RESEARCH Research and summarize all relevant case law, including but not limited to: United States v. Washington. Boldt decision. Treaty of Point No Point cases. Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States. Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Tacoma Public Utilities. Skokomish related Ninth Circuit cases. Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community. Lewis v. Clarke. Ex parte Young. Quiet Title Act Indian lands cases. Rule 19 tribal sovereign immunity cases. Navigable riverbed ownership cases. Equal footing doctrine cases. Reservation boundary cases. Indian canon construction cases. Federal trust land cases. APA final agency action cases involving Solicitor opinions. Cases challenging DOI Solicitor opinions. Cases where state agencies disputed DOI boundary opinions. Cases involving public access to rivers through reservations. RESEARCH LOCATIONS Search: PACER. Westlaw. Lexis. Bloomberg Law. Google Scholar. CourtListener. Ninth Circuit dockets. Western District of Washington dockets. United States Supreme Court dockets. Washington appellate courts. Washington superior court records. DOI Solicitor Opinions. BIA records. Interior Board of Indian Appeals. National Archives. General Land Office records. Bureau of Land Management survey records. Washington State Archives. WDFW public records. Washington Attorney General records. Governor’s Office records. DNR navigability records. Army Corps records. Coast Guard navigability records. NOAA records. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission records. North of Falcon records. PFMC records if relevant. DELIVERABLES REQUIRED 1. Complete case history memorandum. Explain the Treaty of Point No Point, Skokomish Reservation creation, historical boundary descriptions, survey history, DOI opinion, WDFW response, and modern fishery consequences. 2. Complete legal issue memorandum. Analyze ownership, jurisdiction, navigability, treaty rights, sovereign immunity, public trust, administrative law, and state authority. 3. Litigation pathway memorandum. Identify every possible lawsuit that could be filed, ranked strongest to weakest. 4. Proper defendant analysis. Identify who can be sued and who cannot. 5. Standing memorandum. Identify best plaintiff type and evidentiary facts needed. 6. Rule 19 memorandum. Analyze whether the Tribe is indispensable. 7. PACER report. List every relevant case found, docket number, court, parties, procedural status, and key filings. 8. Public records plan. Draft FOIA and PRA requests needed to fill factual gaps. 9. Evidence checklist. List all documents needed as exhibits. 10. Draft pleadings if appropriate. If a viable legal theory exists, draft a complaint and supporting legal memorandum. 11. No go memo if appropriate. If no viable path exists, provide a detailed explanation with citations explaining why. IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES Do not simply tell me “tribal sovereign immunity bars this.” That may be true for a direct lawsuit against the Tribe, but this project requires deeper analysis. I need to know: Can federal officials be sued? Can state officials be sued? Can tribal officials be sued for prospective relief? Can the United States represent the trust interest? Can the State be compelled to litigate? Can a private angler get declaratory relief? Can a public access organization sue? Can the dispute be raised in United States v. Washington? Can the issue be framed around state action rather than tribal action? Can the issue be framed around federal reliance on M-37034? Can the issue be framed around navigability? Can the issue be framed around hatchery funding and denial of access? Can the issue be framed around public trust rights? Can the issue be framed around threatened enforcement? Can the issue be framed around WDFW’s refusal to open a fishery? I want the answer to all of those questions, with law. DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS Ideal candidate has experience with at least one of the following: Federal Indian law. Federal civil litigation. Administrative Procedure Act. Treaty rights. Natural resources law. Fisheries law. Public lands. Federal jurisdiction. Appellate litigation. Quiet title. Sovereign immunity. Rule 19 indispensable party litigation. Washington state public records. FOIA. PACER research. This project may be handled by a United States licensed attorney, a legal research attorney, or a supervised legal research team. If pleadings are prepared, they must be suitable for review by a licensed attorney before filing. FIXED PRICE AND MILESTONES Total project value: $10,000 fixed price. Suggested milestones: Milestone 1: Case and document inventory. Milestone 2: PACER and case law research. Milestone 3: Historical and treaty research. Milestone 4: Standing, jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and Rule 19 analysis. Milestone 5: Litigation pathway memo. Milestone 6: Draft pleadings or no go memorandum. FINAL GOAL The final goal is not to produce a political argument. The final goal is to determine whether there is a real, lawful, nonfrivolous procedural path to obtain a judicial decision answering who owns, controls, or has jurisdiction over the disputed Skokomish River reach. The answer may favor the Tribe. The answer may favor the State. The answer may be mixed. But the public deserves a real legal answer, and this project is intended to find the path to get one.