DRY, et al.,

Petitioners,

VS.

CHOCTAW CFR COURT, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CIV-98-011-S

According to the petition filed in this matter, petitioners request a writ of habeas corpus be issued by this Court "vacating the charges pending against [the] petitioners in [the] Choctaw CFR court and releasing petitioners from the unlawful threat of incarceration in violation of the federal constitution and statutory principles of fairness and due process. (See Petition, pages 28, 29). The Petition specifically alleges that the petitioners face charges in the Choctaw CFR Court in cases numbered CR-95-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. (See Petition, page 3, paragraph 6, referencing Exhibits 7 through 11, attached thereto).

On July 8, 2000, the tribal prosecutor for the CFR Court dismissed all of the above pending cases with prejudice as to any further prosecution that might have arisen out of the petitioners' conduct on the date set forth in the original charges. Accordingly, the petitioners are no longer in danger of conviction or incarceration and this federal action is now moot. (See attached Exhibits A through E attached hereto).
The doctrine of mootness goes directly to the power and jurisdiction of the court to act and requires that in federal cases an actual controversy I exist at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401-402, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 2334, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975). See also Crider v. Keohane, 526 F.Supp. 727, (W.D.Okla. 1981). The aegis of the doctrine, like ripeness and standing, has its constitutional origin in the 'case or controversy' limitation of Article III which insures that courts exercise their power only in cases where true and adversary context allows informed judicial resolution." Wiley v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 612 F.2d 473, 475 (l0 cir. 1979), cert. Denied, 446 U.S. 943, 100 S. Ct. 2168, 64 L.Ed.2d 798. The policies underlying mootness are that it conserves judicial energies for litigants who have a real need for official dispute resolutions; it ensures adverse presentation of factual and legal issues to protect against ill-advised adjudication; and, it restrains the judiciary from injecting itself into affairs of the legislative and executive branches. Kidwell ex rel. Penfold v. Meikle, 597 F.2d 1273, 1289 (9 Cir. 1979).

For the reasons set forth above respondents' request the Court to enter an order dismissing this action.

RABON, WOLF & RABON
402 E. Jackson
P.O. Box 726
Hugo, OK 74743
(580) 326-6427
Attorneys for Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Robert L. Rabon, OBA #13523

I hereby certify that on the 1Oth day of July, 2000, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondents CFR Court of Indian Offenses for the Choctaw Nation and James R. Wolfe, Magistrates' Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss For Mootness to be mailed postage prepaid to the following:

Scott Kayla, Morrison, Esq.
P.O. Box 518
Clayton, OK 74536