prosecution for interfering with judicial proceedings under 17 N.N.C. § 477. See 9 N.N.C. §§ i65t(A)(i); 1663(A). As the respondent is charged under r7 N.N.C.§ 477, the district court must follow the Criminal Code’s sentencing provisions for that offense, even in DAPA situations. Nothing in DAPA allows the district court the additional authority to reach beyond the sentencing restrictions in Section 477 merely because the offense arose out of the violation of a protection order. Even if we were to accept the prosecutor’s construction, we must interpret DAPA consistent with Dipin NohookááDiné’éBi Beehaz’áanii (Navajo Common Law). See Fort Defiance Housing Corp. v. Lowe, 8 Nav. R. 463, 473 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 2004); Navajo Nation Council Resolution No. CN-69-02, § 6(B) (November 13,2002) (<HOLDING>). Fundamental notions of fairness in our Common
holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling recognizing the fundamental laws of the dine and requiring that the written laws be interpreted in harmony with dine common law holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws recognizing a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive a class of persons of their fundamental rights under the laws of the united states