Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Fix?

More on the so-called "Carcieri Fix"...
Regarding yesterday's Supreme Court opinion regarding Carcieri v. Salazar (Kempthorne) here's this from Indian Country Today:
In anticipation of a negative ruling in this case, some legal experts have already suggested remedies.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher, director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University, the land a million casinos, home to Herb Strather and head quarters of Dickenson Wright Indian Gaming Law Firm...

said after oral arguments that tribes could go to Congress to request members to define “now” as explicitly meaning tribes recognized in 1934 and beyond.

“I think it would be pretty easy to just do a technical amendment to the Indian Reorganization Act,” Fletcher said at the time. “Get rid of the phrase ‘now under federal jurisdiction.’ That’s all you’ve got to do.”

Still, some legal experts have noted that for a congressional fix to occur, a burden is placed on tribes to get positive legislation action moved in a timely manner.

Richard Guest, a legal expert with the Native American Rights Fund,

posited that Rhode Island and other states could also decide to go to Congress to try to get members to narrowly define “now” as applying to only tribes recognized when the law was passed.

FYI - Twenty States have already signaled their concern for this issue by signing onto this case as Amicus Curiae.


Nocasino said...

The "FIX" was in with the recognition
The "FIX" was in with the land deal
The "FIX was in with the TMFH
The "FIX" was in with the tribal elections.

NOTE to Investors - Sorry, no more "FIX" for you. All the fixers Graham, Marshall, Hendricks et al soon to be "FIXIN" to go to jail.

Anyone else want to throw their name into that ring??? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Not yet, but I know who you mean!!!
Actually could it be two names??

Your right the FIXES are over!! But, BIA has to try something,(but it won't work), their out of a job!!

Anonymous said...

We have one more fix.

Can we please FIX the Middleboro BOS?

Someone please stick a fork in them, they're aldone too.

Anonymous said...

Your list is deficient. There were 6 tribal members who wrote campaign contributions that were delivered with Stephen Graham's checks and you only listed 2 of them. There will be more names. Just wait.
We still haven't heard an explanation of why a certain HB in town had a certain Stephen Graham on speed dial. I'll bet those feds have. Which certainly raises the issue of others who stood to profit from the casino. Or why a certain AB met with Glenn the Marshall, IBEW and others.
The process has been so corrupt, there might not be anyone untainted left to promote change in Congress.

Anonymous said...

We can fix the *^@* dysfunctional Board of Selectmen one member at a time if we stop voting for idiots or single issues.

We got stuck with one certain current member of the board in the last election because she supported that project that's now HISTORY and will NEVER be.

She didn't get 50% of the vote.
She is like a guest at the Mad Hatters Tea Party and has no idea what's going on around her. Patrick Rogers avoided troubling her little head with the details of the Charter Commission that are posted on the Town's Web Site.

People need to remind their neighbors and friends of the date of the election and when candidates night is at the COA. Jane Lopes sponsors the event and it should be announced in the Gazette. Attend and come prepared to ask questions. Give it some thought and bring a list. Don't just sit at home and watch.

The last 2 bos meetings should have convinced you that these people need to be out of office.

3 people accepted gifts, free meals, limousine transportation, and we don't know what else, in violation of the law and got angry about it when they were asked. 2 people had private conversations with Steven Graham who is going to be indicted. He's the one who told Marshal how to break the law.

We can make a decision to put people with brains on the board who don't socialize with the towns partners or think it's ok. It's time to consider whether backroom deals that effect the entire region should be endorsed and promoted or if you want a voice.

By sending your comments to the addresses that Gladys posted, maybe questions will be asked as indictments move forward. There are questions that need to be asked and answered.

Office of Attorney General
Martha Coakley
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Secretary of the Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240

Massachusetts Ethics Commission
One Ashburton Place
John W. McCormack Building
Room 619 Boston, MA 02108

Board of Bar Overseers
99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Anonymous said...

After all the abuses of casino shopping, reservations great distances from historical lands to build casinos at prime locations and the loss that tribal members have suffered by councils that have squandered funds or used for themselves, the process needs more than a bandaid.
There are a number of organizations that are working with Native Americans to create viable busiinesses and improve education and healthcare, among a wide range of issues. Those organizations are not promoting parasitic enterprises like casino gambling, but empowerment.
It is only those with a vested interest who continue to promote gambling as a solution.
Shedding light on the vermin of vested interests llike Clyde Barrows and Whittlesey is a beginning.

Barry said...

Hello Gladys. Yours is now my newest favorite blog. I wish I had found it sooner!

I am still hesitant to call this deal dead for fear of being disappointed again.

Gladys Kravitz said...

Hey Barry, never fear, more info coming soon to help you relax.

In the meantime... don't miss the video vault.


carverchick said...

Actually, it is 22...well, 23 states including RI who challenged and won this case regarding what "now" means....that is almost half of the United STATES. There is no fix...the SUPREME COURT has ruled on what "now" means - i.e. interpreted the intention of the Act - not what the Tribes and casino investors want it to mean -but what was INTENDED when it was written....Dennis can dream all he wants about "technical ammendments" to a 74 year old Act....the Act is does not mean now and for here on means NOW at the time of enactment which was 1934 (at which time, the Mashpee Wampanoag were not a Federally Recognized Tribe). Enough is enough - 23 out of 50 of the UNITED STATES have spoken.

Gladys Kravitz said...

Ok CC, help straighten this out. These are the states I got off the amicus:

And of course 21.) RHODE ISLAND.

I've heard every number of states from 16 to 25. What's the deal?

carverchick said...

I'll split the difference with you...You missed

22. Alabama

while I counted North and Dakota instead of North Dakota...gosh, it is almost like counting one LIT application asking for 2 parcels of land as 2 LIT applications that are pending in the BIA office!

Oh, it has been a long day!

Gladys Kravitz said...

I did miss Alafreakinbama! And heck, it's been a long two years...

Anonymous said...

Dear Auntie Gladys,

I was a little late in buying those reading glasses and have envelopes filled with the IGA, IGRA and several of your blogs to send to the Middleborough BOS.

They seem somewhat unnecessary now with the SCOTUS decision, although I am looking forward to watching the Board of Ineptitude sputter away about the significance.

What do you recommend?

I am pretty interested in washing the windows in Senator Pacheco's office. If you haven't been there, they're pretty dirty which might explain his poor vision and comprehension.

Blogger Shark said...

Bob the Builder, he can fix it. Yes he can!

Oh... that is Deval's motto. Even that is not working out too well.

You can't put a Band-Aid on a lethal wound.

Smoking Owl said...

The FIX is in?
What the hell does that mean?

I think it means the only ones making any money off these proposed casinos are the politicians in Washington who are about to get their palms greased once again by pro-casino lobbyists.

Anonymous said...

Gladys & CC -
Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to invite all the states to join the brief filed with the Supreme Court, and states that would have joined were not given the opportunity.

But on the day of the trial, states which had not joined the brief were present for the proceedings.

I believe that is enough of an indication that the majority of the governors across the country are not going to sit idle and let the federal government continue step all over state sovereignty.

Even if a Carcieri Fix was introduced to Congress (which I doubt will happen) the political pressure from governors across the country would be felt in DC.

Governors might like the revenue a casino will bring, but they would rather have it from a casino that is part of the state tax rolls, and not from a compact which is essentially bargained under duress. (At least, it used to be. TX changed that.)

Middleboro Review said...

Time will reveal the intended actions of the parties involved, as well as the indictments to be handed down, but the mention of Rep. Rahall's name, yet again this year, prompted me to comment.
Other than supporting Dirty Coal and opposing Cape Wind, I can't see that the man has done anything praiseworthy.
Rep. Rahall? Where Have I Heard That Name Before?

Smoking Owl said...

It all makes sense now!

Adam Bond resigned from the BOS so he could go to Washington to "hammer out" a fix with Congress.

He's probably going to bring litigation against the Supreme Court Justices for not consulting him on their ruling.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Shark,

How 'bout Jo the Plumber?

Anonymous said...

Does that mean that only those states that joined the suit are protected? Can't be. It just indicates how many states were able to join to oppose LIT, right?

Fiferstone said...

This is exciting because it sets a firm interpretation of the secretary of the interior's powers, re: taking land into trust as allowed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, an interpretation thatis informed by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. Prior to this decision by SCOTUS, there was NO precedent for determining the limits of the Secretary of the Interior's mandate to take land into trust (and away from communities) on behalf of federally recognized tribes. The echoes you hear are from the door slamming shut on gaming industry speculators out to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else (including members of federally-recognized tribes). Almost half of the states in the U.S. signed on to this case as "friends of the court" meaning that they had an interest in the outcome of the ruling. This means that almost half of the states in the US wanted the court to establish a legal precedent, which we now have, however much the speculators may dislike the precedent. The supreme court interprets the meaning of the law for ALL of the United States, not just those that signed on to the brief. It just got much harder, and much more costly, to inflict a casino on an unwilling community.

Smoking Owl said...

If there is ever a Congressional revamping of the Indian Reorganization Act to allow the DOI to take land into trust for Native American tribes, maybe there should be a stipulation that a certain percentage of the tribal members must live on the land that is taken for a reservation.

By requiring a percentage of the tribal members to take up permanent residency on their reservation land, it may sway their eagerness to build a mega resort casino in their own backyards.

One benefit of actually being required to live on their reservation, particularly to the Mashpee Wampanoags, is they won't have to worry about paying property taxes.
Although it seems a certain newly elected Tribal chairman doesn't concern himself with such trifling matters, to the tune of $13,000.

If a third of the Mashpee Wampanoags had to live on the land in Middleboro, there wouldn't be much space left to build a huge casino. Of course, they live in Mashpee and don't want to build a casino there, so would they want to build a casino in Middleboro if they were required to live here? I'm not talking about living across town, I'm talking about being required to live on the actual land that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. It only makes sense that a sovereign Tribe should reside on their sovereign lands.

So, by all means, while we're "fixing" things, let's fix everything. Western tribes were forced to live on their reservations, why should newly recognized tribes be treated any differently. I would welcome the Wampanoags to their new residence with open arms. I would even help them move here. If they're willing to build a mega resort casino in their very own backyards, who am I to object.

But I doubt they would.

Gladys Kravitz said...

I don't know, Smoking Owl, I know some folks who'd pull up stakes and park the old double-wide next door to casino on opening day.

As far as requiring tribes to live on casino reservations - tribes would just look for larger tracts of land and place the casino as far away as they can away from their residential section.

But since the Mashpee were told that they could have their cake and eat it too thanks to permissive regulations - that's the route they took.

Had they done the research, they might not have been so willing to let go of all that land in Mashpee.