Cheap Re-Runs with Senator Rosenberg

The success of promoting Slot Parlors in the Commonwealth rests on misinformation and the feeding frenzy created by lobbyists, stroking the egos of the none-too-smart, but some things need to be corrected.

Senator "Cliche King" Rosenberg continues to repeat, promote, misstate and wallow in his ignorance of Indian Gaming law.

When I politely called it to his attention, he dismissed it as an "honest difference of opinion."

Beg to differ!

This is ignorance of the governing laws and SCOTUS decisions - plain and simple, by Senator Rosenberg's choice.

I used to have this incorrect belief that those who served the People were informed and knew what they were talking about. Senator Rosenberg quickly expelled that false belief.

Sent --

I would like to call your attention to an important legal matter that requires correction regarding Indian Gaming.

Quote:
"Rosenberg said he hopes to see a final bill pass so that a regulatory structure will be in place if Native American tribes secure permission from the federal government for expanded gambling."

Found here [source: SHNS]:
http://mobile.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/23/mass_sen_says_gambling_bill_still_could_get_done/?sp=1&search=rosenberg+



Senator Rosenberg has continued to make untrue and misleading statements regarding
Tribal Casinos and IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act).

The fact is that Recognized American Indian Tribes may ONLY construct Slot Parlors,
Bingo Halls or any type of Gaming Facility on their own lands that have been place into
"Trust" by the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs).

If that were not true, Middleboro would already have a Slot Parlor or Bingo Hall.

That process was stymied by the SCOTUS decisions that render the process meaningless.

One of those was the Carcieri v Salazer decision that clarified that the Mashpee Wampanoags
do NOT qualify for the Land into Trust process.


The other that has been ignored is the Hawaii v Office of Hawaiian Affairs that
stated:

Justice Alito then addressed the Apology Resolution, concluding that it does not strip the State of its sovereign authority to sell the lands granted to the State when it was admitted into the Union.

... would raise grave constitutional concerns if it were read to cloud Hawaii’s title to its sovereign land after Hawaii was granted statehood.

It is my understanding that the Federal Government may NOT take land away from a state - a
straight forward Constitutional issue.

Found here:
Opinion Recap: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs


This is of great concern to me and requires correction.

Thanks for your attention and the great work you do.

Regards,



Check out what my friends, Gladys and Carver Chick had to say.

When you get finished with my friends and neighbors, review some of the information on United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.

This is misguided and flawed legislation.

We can do better! Call your elected officials and tell them to focus on legislation they've delayed that will benefit the People - their constituents.