Trouble in the markets? Here’s Charlie Brown, director of floor communications at the NYSE (emphasis ours): What was once viewed earlier in the year as a positive year for the Dow is currently negative to date. I am reminded lately by traders and a myriad of articles that typically the year before an election year is the strongest of a 4-year presidential term. On average (based on data going back to 1933), the Dow Jones Industrial Average gains 10.40% during pre-election years. So far, we are facing negative growth during a pre-election year which would mark the first time this has happened since 1939, according to the traders almanac. However, the year is not over until, as they say, the “fat lady sings.” It is the general sentiment amongst the trading community that we will rally into the close of the year. We shall see if it is enough to reverse the fortunes of the Dow. Legalities: In matters relating to a contract between an Indian and a non-Indian, the case must be heard exclusively within the tribal system in order to promote and protect tribal self-government. Technically, a contract claim arising on the reservation must be adjudicated with the available tribal judicial power and jurisdiction. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959). Williams’ paradigm of exclusive tribal jurisdiction is a leading example of the special rules that the apex court has recognized during the modern era in order to protect tribal government in Indian country. Williams has continued to be widely cited, quoted and upheld. See National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 105 S. Ct. 2447, 2454 (1985); Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo T, 105 S. ct. 1900, 1903 (1985); Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 723 91983); Arizona v. San Carlos Apache tribe, 463 U.S. 545, 563 (1983); New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 333 (1983); Ramah Navaho School Bd. v.Bureau of Revenue, 458 U.S. 832, 837 (1982); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564 (1981); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142, 151 (1980). Try this : In matters relating to a contract between an Indian and a non-Indian, the case must be heard exclusively within the tribal system in order to promote and protect tribal self-government. Technically, a contract claim arising on the reservation must be adjudicated with the available tribal judicial power and jurisdiction. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959). Williams’ paradigm of exclusive tribal jurisdiction is a leading example of the special rules that the apex court has recognized during the modern era in order to protect tribal government in Indian country. Williams has continued to be widely cited, quoted and upheld. See National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 105 S. Ct. 2447, 2454 (1985); Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo T, 105 S. ct. 1900, 1903 (1985); Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 723 91983); Arizona v. San Carlos Apache tribe, 463 U.S. 545, 563 (1983); New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 333 (1983); Ramah Navaho School Bd. v.Bureau of Revenue, 458 U.S. 832, 837 (1982); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564 (1981); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142, 151 (1980).