US ruling granting Mashpee Wampanoag tribe casino land challenged by neighbors

Group of Taunton residents trying to block $1 billion project

By Philip Marcelo

Associated Press

POSTED:   07/12/2016 

BOSTON >> A decision on whether a Massachusetts tribe can continue building a $1 billion casino south of Boston now rests with a federal judge, after casino opponents and the federal government made their case at a Monday court hearing.

Opponents are seeking to overturn the Department of the Interior's September 2015 decision to place over 300 acres in trust for the benefit of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, a decision that paved the way for the First Light casino project.

The casino, hotel and entertainment complex broke ground in Taunton in April, months after a group of local residents filed suit seeking to block the project.

Lawyers for the casino opponents argued in Boston federal court on Monday that the department used an "ungrammatical" reading of federal Indian law to reach the decision.

They pointed to the Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Carcieri vs. Salazar, a case involving the Narragansett Indian tribe in neighboring Rhode Island. That ruling, they argued, effectively said the federal government can only take land into trust for tribes officially recognized as of June 1, 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act creating the modern tribal reservation system became law.

The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which traces its ancestry to the Native Americans who first encountered the Pilgrims in the 1600s, became a federally recognized tribe in 2007 after decades of trying.

"They're creating ambiguity in the language that's simply not there," lawyer David Tennant said.

The Department of Justice countered that opponents are fixated on the grammatical construction of the 1934 law, rather than the legislative intent by Congress, which they suggested was not to limit land in trust rights to only those tribes officially recognized at that time.

"The words can't be viewed in a vacuum," lawyer Steven Miskinis said.

The federal government also noted in legal filings that members of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe have been living on lands specifically set aside for them in their historical home base in Mashpee since colonial times.

Judge William Young is expected to issue a decision as soon as the end of the month.

David Littlefield, one of the Taunton residents leading the casino opposition, said the group was prepared to appeal if Young's decision doesn't go in its favor.

"We're optimistic. He seems like a very fair judge. He beat up our attorneys and he beat up their attorneys," he said.

The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which isn't a party to the lawsuit, applauded Young for "challenging the plaintiffs oversimplified view of the federal government's authority" in a statement.

"Thankfully, the judge clearly understands the complexity of the issues involved," Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell said. "We remain confident moving forward."

The tribe and its Malaysia-based partners the Genting Group have been demolishing buildings and clearing land in preparation for construction.

They say the first phase of the First Light Resort and Casino will open as soon as next summer, making the casino Massachusetts' first major resort gambling facility.

MGM is also building a resort in Springfield, and Wynn Resorts has one planned in the Boston area. Plainridge Park, a more modest slots parlor and harness racing track in Plainville, opened about a year ago.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/ci_30116822/us-ruling-granting-mashpee-wampanoag-tribe-casino-land

Check out: 
Reel Wamps

MASHPEE WAMPANOAG

Judge narrows focus of suit brought by casino foes

Interior Department's land trust decision now key issue

By George Brennan

Posted Jun. 29, 2016 at 7:09 PM 

BOSTON — Arguments over dismissing parts of the federal lawsuit brought by East Taunton neighbors against the U.S. Department of the Interior are on hold and, instead, a federal judge will narrow his focus to one key issue that paved the way for a Mashpee Wampanoag casino.

On July 11, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young will consider dueling summary judgment motions having to do with how the tribe’s land application was approved given a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, known as the Carcieri decision. In that ruling, the nation’s highest court called into question the Interior Department's ability to take land in trust for tribes recognized after 1934, the year of the Indian Reorganization Act.

The Mashpee tribe was federally recognized in 2007.

The court approved the stipulation before yesterday’s motion hearing in Boston, so the session was put on hold, said David Tennant, an attorney for the East Taunton plaintiffs.

“We’re dealing with the Carcieri issue as a standalone,” he said. “Everything else is in hibernation.”

Earlier this month, Young decided not to hear arguments for an injunction sought by the neighbors and instead said he would put the trial on the fast track. He had scheduled yesterday’s motion hearing and a July 11 trial. Instead that July 11 date will now be used for the cross motions for summary judgment.

Each side must file motions July 7 and will be able to make oral arguments July 11, Tennant said.

The suit alleges that the Interior Department circumvented Carcieri to approve the tribe’s land application by using a definition of “Indian” and “reservation” that doesn’t fit the Mashpee tribe.

“The Mashpees did not meet their burden to prove that they were tribally organized and exercised tribal jurisdiction over their lands and people in 1934, much less that they were recognized by the federal government for doing so and fell under federal jurisdiction in 1934,” the suit states.

Interior’s record of decision points to the tribe’s historic ties to both Mashpee and Taunton and finds that the tribe members meet the second definition of “Indian” — descendants of a recognized Indian tribe — and that the tribe’s “continued control and occupation” of Mashpee as of 1934 constitutes a reservation.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is not a party to the suit because it targets the Interior Department’s decision. Still, the tribe has a keen interest in the outcome.

In September, the Interior Department agreed to take land in trust in Taunton and Mashpee for the tribe’s initial reservation. The tribe has begun construction of First Light Resort & Casino in Taunton and has targeted next summer to open phase one of the Indian casino.

Plans for the casino, which will cost an estimated $600 million to build, include three hotels, a gaming room with 3,000 slot machines, 150 table games and 40 poker tables. The first phase is expected to feature a gambling floor with about 1,900 slot machines, 60 table games, and some restaurants.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20160629/judge-narrows-focus-of-suit-brought-by-casino-foes

Federal opinion backs tribe's claims

Federal opinion backs tribe's claims

 

 

 

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

March 19, 2014

 

A legal opinion issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior on what it means to be under federal jurisdiction bolsters the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe's claims that a high court ruling does not apply to its plans for a $500 million casino in Taunton.

 

"It's very exciting and epic the way this is coming out," Tribal Council Chairman Cedric Cromwell said Tuesday night.

Related Links

• Read our ongoing coverage of the casino debate

 

The opinion, issued late last week, defines "under federal jurisdiction" and provides the legal standard the Interior Department secretary will use to decide whether to take land into trust for an Indian casino.

 

At issue is a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court known as the Carcieri decision, which called into question the authority of the Interior Department to take land into trust for tribes recognized after the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Mashpee tribe was federally recognized in 2007.

 

The court left open the possibility that Carcieri wouldn't apply to tribes able to show they were under federal jurisdiction, even if not formally recognized. The Interior Department has taken this position before in taking land into trust for the Cowlitz Tribe in Washington, but this latest legal opinion solidifies that stance.

 

The legal opinion presented by federal Solicitor Hilary Tompkins at the National Congress of American Indians appears to be consistent with the analysis provided by the Mashpee Wampanoag to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in support of its land application. In it, the tribe claims to have been under federal jurisdiction, in part, because some tribe members were sent to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools — something Tompkins specifically cites as a way for tribes to show they were under federal control.

 

"Some tribes may be able to demonstrate they were under federal jurisdiction by showing that federal government officials undertook guardianlike action on behalf of the tribe, or engaged in a continuous course of dealings with the tribe," Tompkins wrote.

 

Among the things the tribe cites in its so-called Carcieri analysis are children who were sent to the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. It also cites a 1763 land deal it had with King George III of England that it says is akin to a treaty.

 

"It's totally consistent with our legal analysis," Cromwell said of the legal opinion. "It's important to set the record straight. It's what we've been saying all along. It's great that they've come out and said this."

 

The federal bureau has not yet acted on the tribe's Carcieri analysis, even though at one point it told the tribe to expect a result in early 2013.

 

Whether and when the Mashpee tribe might be able to get its land application approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is part of the reason the Massachusetts Gaming Commission opened Southeastern Massachusetts, known as Region C, to commercial casinos.

 

On Thursday, the commission is expected to debate whether to extend the deadline for Phase 2 applications in the region. At least one developer, KG Urban Enterprises, which hopes to build a casino on the New Bedford waterfront, filed a letter by Tuesday's deadline seeking an extension until Oct. 23. In that letter, KG Urban cites the Indian casino process.

 

"KG's development efforts have been hindered by certain misconceptions held by the gaming industry concerning the commission's delay in opening the region to commercial bidders and the likelihood of a tribal casino operating in the region," the letter from Barry Gosin, a principal of the company, stated.

 

A delay would give the company time to address those concerns, Gosin wrote.

 

Meanwhile, Foxwoods is seeking to build a commercial casino in Fall River.

 

Elaine Driscoll, a spokesman for the Gaming Commission, said Tuesday she's not sure how many comments the commission received by the deadline. Those will be made public at Thursday's commission meeting, she said.

 

Cromwell said the tribe didn't bother to weigh in.

 

"We're focused on what we're doing," Cromwell said. "If there were naysayers on the commission, hopefully they'll see we'll have land into trust. We'll have our casino in Taunton. We'll have our revenue sharing for the state. We hope they understand."

 

Licensing a commercial casino in the region would drop the tribe's payments from 17 percent of gross gambling revenue to zero under the terms of compact between the tribe and Gov. Deval Patrick that was approved by the bureau.

 

A commercial casino would pay a 25 percent tax.

 

"It would be unfortunate if they breached our contract by having a commercial casino in the same region," Cromwell said. "There's no way a commercial casino could compete in the same region, if we're paying zero. We would just give it back to the customer in comps."

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140319/NEWS/403190325/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

 

 

New Bedford casino contender KG Urban loses lawsuit

 

By George Brennan gbrennan@capecodonline.com

January 10, 2014

A federal judge has ruled that the state's casino law does not unfairly tip the scales in favor of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued the widely anticipated ruling Thursday in the lawsuit brought by KG Urban Enterprises, a developer with hopes of building a commercial casino in New Bedford, saying the state law is not unconstitutional.

KG Urban lawyers filed suit the day the Expanded Gaming Act was signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in November of 2011, alleging that aspects of the law that set deadlines and parameters for a possible Indian casino in Southeastern Massachusetts, known as Region C in the legislation, violated the Equal Protection Clause and amounted to a "race-based, set-aside."

Gorton, in dismissing the suit, said he finds "no express racial preference" in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's procedures or standards.

The state's contention all along is that it included the possibility of a tribal casino in the state law because federal law allows tribes to open gambling facilities on Indian lands in states that allow expanded gambling. State leaders wanted to account for the tribe because gambling studies showed three casinos would be the preferred maximum in the Bay State.

While Gorton found KG Urban "has established a prima facie case that the Gaming Commission is acting with discriminatory purpose," he concluded that commissioners could also show they would come to the "same decision in the absence of any discriminatory purpose."

The court's decision is a blow to KG Urban, which filed an application for a commercial casino in New Bedford in September, but has struggled to find a willing investor in the project because of the lurking presence of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe's proposal to build a $500 million casino in Taunton.

Paul Clement, a KG Urban lawyer, issued a statement Thursday saying the casino developer plans to appeal.

"We are pleased that Judge Gorton found that KG demonstrated a 'prima facie' — a facially valid — case that the commercial licensing process described by Chairman (Stephen) Crosby violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause," Clement said. "We believe that Judge Gorton misconstrued Chief Judge Lynch's 2012 First Circuit decision, and that his conclusion should have resulted in an injunction. We have already filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit."

The KG Urban case initially had been dismissed in federal court in early 2012, but was sent back to Gorton by Lynch saying any set-aside for the tribe could only be for a limited period.

Gorton's latest decision comes as the Wampanoag tribe has some apparent momentum in the race for a Southeastern Massachusetts casino. Last week, the tribe learned that its compact with the state was approved by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Still, the tribe faces a major hurdle in having its Taunton land taken into federal trust by the BIA.

That application is under review, but a key decision awaits on whether the tribe can overcome a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as the Carcieri decision. That ruling calls into question the BIA's authority to take land into trust for tribes recognized after 1934.
 

The Mashpee tribe was federally recognized in 2007, but tribe leaders insist they've made the case that Carcieri does not apply because the Wampanoag were under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

Opponents have said the Carcieri ruling is insurmountable for the tribe and that its ties to anywhere other than Mashpee are suspect.

Tribe leaders could not be reached for comment Thursday night.

Elaine Driscoll, a spokesman for the Gaming Commission, said in an email that commissioners would have no comment on the federal court ruling until after it is reviewed by commissioners today.

Even after opening up Region C to commercial bids and accepting the KG Urban application in September, the commission has said it will factor in where the Mashpee tribe is at in the process in deciding whether to issue a commercial license in Southeastern Massachusetts.

Gorton noted that in his decision. "The court acknowledges that the commission has, of course, on several occasions invoked the possibility of an Indian casino as a potential influence on a future decision," Gorton wrote. "A careful reading of this evidence, however, indicates that the commission has done so as a means of illustrating a specific instance of how it would apply a neutral criterion, namely the economic consequences, to the subject casino."
 

Under the terms of the tribal-state compact, the tribe wouldn't have to pay anything to the state if a commercial casino exists in Region C — something that would make it hard for a state-licensed casino, paying 25 percent taxes, to compete against.

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140110/NEWS/401100333/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

Attorney General Strange beefs up lawsuit against Indian casinos

Attorney General Strange beefs up lawsuit against Indian casinos
Posted: Apr 12, 2013
By Tametria Conner

 

MONTGOMERY, AL (WSFA) - Alabama Attorney General Luther strange is beefing up the state's lawsuit against the Poarch Band of Creek Indian's three casinos.

In March, the Indians filed a motion to move the case to federal court. They also asked the court to simply dismiss the case.

Attorney General Strange's latest filing centers on whether the tribe's games are slot machines or bingo machines.

The original suit was filed in February and asked the court to close the Indian casinos in Atmore, Montgomery and Wetumpka.

[DOCUMENT: Attorney General's court filing (.pdf)]

Thursday's filing amends that complaint to clarify the federal aspects of the state's claims. AG Strange wants to shut the casinos down, saying they are operating slot machines which are considered illegal under Alabama law.

The Poarch Creek Indians argue that the attorney general is trying to circumvent federal law and disregard the sovereignty of their land.

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/21949891/attorney-general-strange-beefs-up

Bingo battle heats up as A.G. Luther Strange expands complaint against Poarch Creek

12 Apr 2013 6:33 AM Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange today returned fire against the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, lodging a multi-pronged legal attack on the tribe's gambling interests in the state. The new tack was laid out in an amended complaint against the tribe filed today in U.S. District Court in Montgomery. Strange had originally asked an Elmore County Circuit Court judge to shut down the Poarch Band's three casinos on the grounds that they are a public nuisance. The new complaint was filed after the tribe last month moved the lawsuit to federal court and asked a judge to dismiss it on the grounds that Alabama has no legal right to sue the Poarch Band, a sovereign nation under federal law. "We have amended the complaint to clarify the federal aspects of the State's claim and to let the court know more about how the Tribe's slot machines ope rate. Amending a complaint is something that happens all the time in the early stages of a lawsuit," said Andrew Brasher, Strange's deputy solicitor general, in an email. Brasher's statement goes on to suggest that filing the suit in state court at first was a legal rouse designed to limit the tribe's options in court. "We were not surprised that the tribal defendants moved the lawsuit from state court to federal court. This procedural move required the tribal defendants to acknowledge that federal law gives the State a claim against them and to waive several defenses that they could have raised. So, we are not asking the federal court to send the case back to state court; we are asking the federal court to go ahead and consider our claim now," he said. The latest complaint still claims that the tribe's casinos are a public nuisance under Alabama law, but it expands the legal theater of battle by calling into question the slot-style, electronic bingo machines that the tribe uses. Unlike private gambling operations, like the recently raided VictoryLand, which are covered by state law, Tribal gambling is governed by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, commonly referred to as IGRA. Broadly speaking, IGRA allows federally recognized tribes like the Poarch Band to engage in bingo gambling if bingo gambling is legal elsewhere in the state. In order to engage in slot machines or table games like blackjack and roulette, tribes have to enter into a legal compact with the state. Bingo is legal in certain Alabama counties, so the Poarch Band has the right to operate bingo halls. However, the tribe has no compact with the state, and Alabama law specifically prohibits slot-machine gambling, which is what Strange argues is really going on in Poarch Band casinos. Bingo or Slots? Strange argues slots IGRA allows tribes to engage in bingo via comp uters or other "technological aids," even if such electronic versions of the game are illegal elsewhere in the state. However, IGRA expressly forbids "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind." According to Strange's complaint, that's exactly what the Poarch Band's machines are designed to do. The complaint includes a number of exhibits showing the kinds of "bingo" machines that the Poarch Band uses, noting their resemblance to slot machines. Several of the models, the complaint points out, have both bingo and non-bingo versions that are virtually identical. An AL.com reporter recently lost $20 to Red Hot Fusion, one of the models cited in the complaint, as he did research on the Wind Creek Casino in Atmore. An avid gamer told him that a Pascagoula casino has the same game, minus the bingo. As the complaint puts it, "The player does not need to pay attention, listen to alphanumeric designations drawn one-by-one, or match them up to a bingo card. Instead, the player presses a single button, watches slot-machine reels spin, and is told whether he or she has won by the gambling device." In addition to Strange's argument that th e games themselves are illegal under federal and state law, he also asserts that the tribe's casinos do not sit on federally protected trust land and are thus subject to the state's gambling laws. The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act gave the federal government the right to take lands of recognized tribes into trust, but the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 Carcieri decision ruled that the law only applies to tribes that were recognized at the time the act went into law. Since the Poarch Band was recognized in the 1980s, that means their lands are not actually federally protected, according to Strange. Some experts have said that the Carcieri decision does not necessarily apply to all tribes, that it would take further legal or administrative changes to undo the trust status of the dozens of tribes that gained federal recognition after 1934. The tribe will likely file a new response to the state's complaint in the coming weeks.

 

http://www.wwntradio.com/news/news.php/displayType/article/12780/2013/04/bingo-battle-heats-up-as-ag-luther-strange-expands-complaint-against-poarch-creek

 

 Alabama tribal casino slot machine dispute moves to federal court
The Republic
The Montgomery Advertiser reports (http://on.mgmadv.com/17vyQor ) state officials say the Poarch Creek casinos are feature gambling machines that violate state and federal laws. Officials say operating slot machines is illegal in the state and illegal ...



AG wants federal judge to shut down Indian casinos
Montgomery Advertiser
The state, in the amended complaint filed on Thursday by the office of Attorney General Luther Strange, is seeking to shut down the Poarch Creek casinos by having them declared public nuisances that operate slot machines that are illegal in the state ...

 

Mashpee/Genting tribe goes on the offensive

The Casino KoolAid consumers have imbibed too much again!

Mashpee tribe goes on the offensive

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

March 29, 2013

 

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is taking off the gloves in its battle to keep Southeastern Massachusetts free from casino competition.

 

In a letter to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission delivered Thursday morning, an attorney for the tribe says the commission "lacks the lawful authority" to seek competitive bids in Southeastern Massachusetts, known as Region C in the Expanded Gaming Act of 2011.

 

The initial compact reached between the tribe and Gov. Deval Patrick, and approved by the

 

Legislature last July, states the commission "will not issue a request for Category 1 license applications in Region C unless and until it determines that the tribe will not have land into trust for it by the United States Secretary of the Interior," Howard Cooper, the tribe's attorney, wrote.

 

Though that compact was ultimately rejected by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, the same language is in the renegotiated deal between the tribe and the governor, Cooper wrote.

 

Because the tribe's application to have land taken into trust is under active review, it would be premature for the commission to open the region to competitive bids, he said.

 

That's a legal opinion in sharp contrast to what commissioners said in December when the agency first considered opening the region to competitive bids.

 

At the commission's meeting Thursday afternoon, Commissioner James McHugh, a retired judge, reiterated an opinion he offered the commission in December that there is nothing in the state law that prohibits the gaming commission from seeking bids in Southeastern Massachusetts.

 

"I believe that the commission's powers were not limited in that fashion because of the plain language of the statute and because of the absence of language specifying that," he said. "That's just the view of one commissioner. We have not adopted that view. We have not come to any coalescence around that."

 

The law gives the commission the authority to move on with commercial bids if it determines "the tribe will not have land taken into trust."

 

State Rep. Robert Koczera, D-New Bedford, a proponent of opening the region, said it's the legislation and not the compact that empowers the commission.

 

"I really think this letter is a bunch of smoke," Koczera said. "I see it as an affront. They're trying to respond to opponents. They're matter-of-factly saying to the gaming commission they can't do it. If I was a member of the gaming commission, I would take exception to it."

 

New Bedford has a developer, KG Urban Enterprises, waiting in the wings with a proposal to build a casino on the waterfront. KG Urban has a federal lawsuit pending that alleges the tribe's exclusive window is a "race-based set-aside." A spokesman for the company declined to comment on the tribe's letter.

 

The letter comes a week after the commission held a meeting at Bristol Community College in Fall River where it heard from a parade of legislators, developers and casino opponents urging commissioners to move ahead with commercial bids.

 

The commission did not make a decision at the March 21 meeting, but will discuss it at next Thursday's meeting in Boston, McHugh said. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

 

Under the terms of the new compact, the tribe would pay nothing to the state if a commercial casino is located in the same region.

 

The compact still needs the approval of the state Legislature and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

 

The compact was filed Wednesday and was sent to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies for review, Seth Gitell, a spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo, said in an email Thursday.

 

The committee has not yet scheduled a hearing.

 

In the tribe's letter, Cooper also takes issue with "specific misstatements" made in testimony to the commission by opponents of the project.

 

Opponents often cite a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as the Carcieri decision as an insurmountable hurdle for the tribe. That ruling called into question the Department of the Interior's authority to take land into trust for tribes federally recognized after 1934. Those critics misread the high court ruling, Cooper wrote.

 

The tribe has submitted documentation why it believes it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and a bureau decision is expected in "early 2013," Cooper wrote. He offered to share the documentation with commission members.

 

Casino opponents have produced letters written in 1899 and 1937 they say show the tribe was under state jurisdiction, but Cooper said those issues are addressed in the tribe's submission to the bureau.

 

In his letter, Cooper indicates it was common for the federal government to "disclaim its responsibilities" to tribes. That won't determine how the bureau rules now on whether the tribe was under federal jurisdiction, he wrote.

 

"Geez, you would think for all the money the tribe is paying him, he could come up with something better than, 'Oh yeah, we knew about that, the Feds made a mistake,'" said Allin Frawley, the Middleboro selectman who testified about those historic letters.

 

In the letter, Cooper also seeks to counter claims that the environmental review process is stalled. He outlines a timeline that would have that process, which falls under the National Environmental Protection Act, completed by early 2014.

 

Another oft-cited Supreme Court ruling, the so-called Patchak decision, which allows opponents of tribal casinos to sue up to six years after land is taken into trust, would actually speed up the process, Cooper contends.

 

Previously, the bureau would delay final decisions until all legal challenges were exhausted, Cooper wrote.

 

"The department is no longer compelled to 'self-stay' all acquisitions, confident that the courts can sort out the need, if any, to enjoin acquisitions," he wrote.

 

State Rep. Keiko Orrall, R-Lakeville, said the decision on opening the region is clearly the commission's to make. "The question is whether or not the tribe's progress is significant enough to delay others from entering the bidding process," she said.

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130329/NEWS/303290323/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

 

Wampanoags don't have agreement to buy the Galleria property named in compact

 

But the Tribe doesn't have an agreement to buy it

The casino compact between the state and the Wampanoags identifies more than 100 acres of Silver City Galleria mall as the site for the Taunton casino

Article | March 23, 2013 - 7:18am | By Walter Brooks

 

Mashpee Wampanoag tribe says it has no agreement to purchase Galleria property identified in compact
The Herald-News reports today that the casino compact between the state and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe identifies more than 100 acres of Silver City Galleria mall property as being part of the approved site for the proposed tribal casino, although the tribe says it has no agreement in place to purchase the parcels.

The land identified as part of the tribe’s proposed casino project is located across from the Liberty & Union Industrial Park.

The tribe tried to get an agreement to purchase the Galleria last year, but was unable to make a deal.
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell. said yesterday “We’re working on a resolution. My only concern is protecting the city of Taunton’s interests".

The one forward development this week came on the gaming front with Gov. Deval Patrick and the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe agreeing to a new revenue sharing compact. The deal tiers the amount of casino revenue the tribe would return to the state - the most likely scenario being a 17 percent return.

The state stands to see no revenue, however, if the southeast region is opened to a commercial
developer as well, food for thought after the Gaming Commission this week delayed a decision on how to handle the region.

Fall River and New Bedford official say this is preventing southeastern Massachusetts from benefiting from the economic development lawmakers anticipated when they passed the gambling legislation.

Officials who represent Fall River and New Bedford, raise concerns that the tribe’s pursuit of a casino is a dead end due to the Bureau of Indian Affair not yet accepting the tribe's land deal.

The Supreme Court’s 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision states that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to take land in trust for tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction at the time of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.

Mashpee Wampanoag tribal leader Cedric Cromwell counted this saying, “We expect to have land put into trust this year and have shovels in the ground next year and open for gaming in 2015... the tribe is years ahead of any potential commercial casino developer".

Read the Herald-News story here.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2013/03/23/17827-wampanoags-dont-have-agreement-buy-galleria-property-named-compact

Revised deal reached with Mashpee Wampanoag tribe

Deval Patrick: Revised deal reached with Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, planning casino in Taunton

By State House News Servicemasslive.com
on March 14, 2013

 

By MICHAEL NORTON and MATT MURPHY
BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick and the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which hopes to build a casino in Taunton, have reached an agreement in principle on a revised compact, Gov. Patrick said during a radio appearance Thursday.

An initial compact reached between the governor and the tribe was rejected by the federal government in October 2012 and state gaming industry regulators are considering whether to open the southeastern Massachusetts region up to commercial casino bidders.

Patrick said the revised agreement has been vetted with the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and that he needs to brief legislative leaders about it – the compact needs legislative approval.

The governor, speaking early Thursday afternoon on his “Ask the Governor” segment on WGBH, said he may be able to sign the revised compact in the "next few days."

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission plans a meeting March 21 at Bristol Community College in Fall River to discuss the status of expanded gambling in southeastern Massachusetts, an area officials described as Region C.

Some southeastern Massachusetts lawmakers have expressed concern that casino development in the area will stall or lag behind other areas of the state if tribal gaming issues become hung up before the federal government.

Last October, the Bureau of Indian Affairs objected to the balance of concessions made by the state to justify a revenue-sharing agreement that would have sent 21.5 percent of net casino revenue back to Massachusetts. The government also ruled the administration overstepped its bounds in seeking to include hunting and fishing rights in the compact, and for trying to exert authority over issues such as regulation of suppliers and entertainment services.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/deval_patrick_revised_deal_reached_mashpee_wampanoag_taunton_casino.html

Markey: Opening the Floodgates

With local approval, there is nothing that prevents tribes from providing economic opportunity, but that isn't what this is about.

This is about legalizing Predatory Gambling by removing local control.

Federally recognized Tribes receive taxpayer-funded subsidies with no oversight, some is clearly misspent and fails to appropriately aid tribal members. Both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have continued to receive taxpayers' largess, even when Tribal Casinos were immensely profitable. Was it reasonable to subsidize Tribes that pay each adult member + $100,000 tax-free per year?

Massachusetts currently has 2 federally recognized Tribes, with other Tribes awaiting approval.

Any Carcieri Fix would remove state and local control and it would seem that much work is needed to convince the Massachusetts delegation that this is not an appropriate solution.

Recently, during a meeting with Congressman Kennedy, he indicated his support for a Carcieri Fix.

This outdated article offers the positions of some --

The issue has split the Democrats who are in charge of both the House and the Senate, including those in the Massa­chusetts delegation. Sen. John Kerry and Reps. Stephen Lynch of South Boston, Michael Capuano of Somerville, John Olver of Amherst, and Bill Delahunt of Quincy, who is retiring, favor the change. Delahunt’s district, which includes the South Shore and Cape Cod and the Islands, is the home base of both of the tribes.

[As we know, Delahunt is currently lobbyist for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.]

Proponents like Lynch say it’s only fair to treat all Indian tribes the same. The court decision, he says, was a “slap in the face” to American Indians, threatening “tribal sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and self-determination.”

But Rep. Barney Frank of Newton, whose district would be home to both of the proposed Indian casinos in Fall River, opposes the so-called Carcieri fix because it would potentially allow tribes to open gambling facilities on trust land even if local officials opposed them. He insists that decisions on gambling should be made at the state and local level, not by the federal government in cooperation with the tribes. He nevertheless supports the Massa­chu­setts tribes’ efforts to acquire reservation land in Fall River for a casino because the local community strongly supports the effort.

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/Departments/Washington-Notebook/2010/Fall/Tribes-lobby-for-reservation-land.aspx

Please contact Ed Markey, as well as your Congressman to oppose this legislation.

....includes language which would overrule the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carcieri vs. Salazar, and permit newly recognized Indian Tribes to take land-in-trust, thereby removing it from state and local control.

If this bill receives Congressional approval, it will drastically affect communities across the United States. Urge the members of your congressional delegation to take whatever action is required to remove this pending bill. #666.

REMOVE THIS BILL FROM THE house resource committee now #666. Sponsored by Ed Markey from Massachusetts!

Markey--

Call 202-225-2836

Fax 202-224-0092

30 states (*including RI) are opposed to a Carcieri fix.

17 states wrote an amicus brief supporting the case, They are:

Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

17 states’ attorneys general wrote a letter supporting the Supreme Court after the Carcieri opinion was released.

The 11 additional states that support the decision are:

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

Markey's bill could help Mashpee casino plan

By Gerry Tuoti

Taunton Gazette Staff Reporter

Posted Mar 08, 2013

Associated Press | Elise Amendola

U.S. Senate hopeful Edward Markey shakes hands with 

supporters outside the Statehouse in Boston on Monday.

TAUNTON —

As the Massachusetts Gaming Commission continues to evaluate whether to open southeastern Massachusetts to commercial casino applicants, a piece of federal legislation could be the latest card on the table.

Congressman Edward Markey, D-Mass., has sponsored a bill — H.R. 666 — that would eliminate questions surrounding the federal government’s ability to take land in trust for American Indian tribes such as the Mashpee Wampanoag, who are working to build a casino on land in East Taunton.

“This legislation has been the priority for Indian tribes since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2009,” Markey said in a statement his office provided to the Taunton Daily Gazette. “As the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee that has responsibility for Native American issues, I’ve supported legislation to correct the flawed ruling, which held that the Secretary of the Interior may only take land into trust for Indian tribes under federal jurisdiction as of 1934.”

The Mashpee, who didn’t receive federal recognition until 2007, currently have no reservation land, but hope to establish an initial reservation through a land-in-trust application that’s pending with the Department of the Interior. The tribe cannot open a tribal casino without possessing sovereign land.

In the 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the language contained in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 means that the federal government cannot take land in trust for tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction at the time of the act.

“Tribes, like (the) Mashpee that were federally recognized well after 1934, are therefore significantly impacted by the decision and efforts to establish their reservation and create a homeland for their citizens are jeopardized,” said Markey, who is running in the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. “I co-sponsored legislation in the last congress and have reintroduced it with my colleagues in the beginning of this congress.”

The Mashpee have argued that they were under federal jurisdiction long before 1934, even though they weren’t formally recognized.

“While we are confident that the Department of the Interior has the legal authority to take land into trust on our behalf, a clean Carcieri fix would help clear up the confusion caused by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision and would spur economic development across Indian Country,” Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell said in a statement.

Others, however, have questioned the tribe’s ability to establish a reservation.

Under the 2011 state law that legalized casino gambling, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission can only solicit applications for a commercial casino in the southeastern region of the state if it determines the Mashpee are unlikely to meet the requirements to open a tribal casino under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Government official have said the intent of that provision was to ensure that there won’t be more than three casinos statewide.

The Massachusetts law authorizes no more than one commercial casino in each of three regions of the state, but southeastern Massachusetts is the only region that’s home to a federally recognized American Indian tribe. Under federal law, any eligible American Indian tribe can open a casino on its own sovereign land in a state in which casino gambling is legal.

The Gaming Commission has discussed whether to open southeastern Massachusetts to commercial casino applicants, but decided to delay a decision. The commission, however, is poised to revisit the discussion at a March 21 meeting at Bristol Community College in Fall River.

H.R. 666 isn’t the first legislative attempt to amend the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to “fix” the Carcieri decision. In 2011, former Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., who has since retired, filed a virtually identical bill, which Markey co-sponsored. Markey has since succeeded Kildee as ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Kildee’s bill was filed approximately seven months before Massachusetts approved expanded gambling, and more than a year before Taunton passed a local referendum supporting the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s casino plan.

Markey’s bill was introduced Feb. 13, then sent to the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs on Feb. 22.

“The people of Massachusetts have rendered their verdict on gaming,” Markey said. “It is coming to our state. In light of that fact, I have supported the state developing a gaming compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag as a way to support revitalizing its tribal culture, providing fundamental health, housing and other government services to its people, and encouraging economic independence.”


Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x766878440/Markeys-bill-could-help-Mashpee-casino-plan#ixzz2N31vO4k5

18th-century pact an ace in Mashpee tribe's pocket?

18th-century pact an ace in Mashpee tribe's pocket?

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

January 27, 2013

 

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is banking on a 250-year-old agreement with King George III as a key to overcome what experts have called the biggest hurdle to building a $500 million casino in Taunton.

 

The tribe argues in a document filed with the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs that it has been under federal jurisdiction since this country's inception because of the deal with the king. It also asserts that the United States has repeatedly failed in its responsibility to protect the Mashpee Wampanoag, leaving it "impoverished and nearly landless."

Related Links

• More: Times coverage of the Mashpee Wampanoag's quest for a casino

TRIBE TIMELINE

1665 - Mashpee becomes the first deeded Indian town with the assistance of sachems Tookenchosen and Webquash and the Rev. Richard Bourne. The deed restricts the sale of land without permission of the South Sea Indians, the tribe's name at that time.T

1685 - Tribe successfully petitions the Plymouth Colony to recognize the deed, which stipulates Mashpee as a reservation.

1694 - Colony appoints overseers to "outlaw the sale of liquor to the Indians."

1763 - Wampanoag school teacher Reuben Cognehew visits England where King George III grants Mashpee the unique status of "Indian district." Agreement gives tribe control over local government and fishing rights.

1789 - U.S. Constitution goes into effect, which requires it to uphold the "treaty" between the king and tribe.

1790 - U.S. Congress passes the Nonintercourse Act, which stipulates Indian rights to their land.

1822 - The Secretary of War directs the Rev. Jedediah Morse to visit and inspect Indian tribes to determine which ones should be moved to Oklahoma. He reports that Mashpee removal would not be appropriate because of ties to the whale industry, among other things. "Their local attachments are strong; they are tenacious of their lands," he wrote in part.

1870 - Massachusetts incorporates Mashpee as a town and allots its land to tribe members, though some land, including the meetinghouse and cemetery, remained common lands.

1934 - Congress approves the Indian Reorganization Act, which restores tribe rights to self-govern. Mashpee petitions for inclusion in that act, but not considered under federal jurisdiction

.

1975 - Mashpee Wampanoag files suit against property owners in federal court seeking restoration of tribal lands.

1978 - After losing the land suit, tribe files its application for federal recognition.

2007 - Tribe is recognized by the federal government.

2009 - U.S. Supreme Court questions authority of the Department of the Interior to take lands into federal trusts for tribes recognized after 1934 - the "Carcieri decision."

2011 - Interior Department approves taking land in trust for the Cowlitz tribe, saying it can show it was under federal jurisdiction on and before 1934

.

2012 - Mashpee tribe amends its land in trust application to include Taunton.

Source: Mashpee Wampanoag application for land in trust
 

"Now, as the tribe's trustee, the department can and should reverse this shameful history by accepting the proposed land in trust," the document states.

 

The legal arguments are made in a nearly 60-page document submitted along with the tribe's application to have 146 acres in Taunton and 170 acres in Mashpee taken into federal trust by the Department of the Interior. It comes as the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs is reviewing the tribe's application and expects to rule on part of it by the end of this month.

 

The 1763 agreement with King George III, which tribe attorneys equate to a treaty, is one of a half-dozen arguments aimed at showing why a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court known as the Carcieri decision does not apply to the Mashpee Wampanoag. The ruling called into question the Interior Department's authority to take land in trust for tribes recognized after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. The act restored certain rights to tribes, including self governance.

The Mashpee tribe was federally recognized in 2007.

 

The Times obtained a copy of the document through a tribal source in advance of its release publicly by the bureau.

 

Tribe leaders have said the 2009 ruling does not apply to the Mashpee tribe, but this report provides the first details of how the tribe hopes to get beyond it.

 

The Mashpee Wampanoag legal argument was authored by Arlinda Locklear and Judith Shapiro.

Locklear is described in a Duke University biography as a Native American law pioneer who worked toward getting federal recognition for her own tribe, the Lumbee in North Carolina, and in 1984 was the first American Indian woman to argue before the Supreme Court, according to the profile.

 

Shapiro has practiced Indian gaming law for 25 years, according to her firm's website, including work for the Mohegan tribe in Connecticut.

 

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Chairman Cedric Cromwell declined to answer specific questions about the tribe's application because it remains under review.

 

"I can say that the information we have presented to the Department of Interior is compelling, and supports the fact that our people have inhabited present-day Southeastern Massachusetts, including the Taunton area, for thousands of years," Cromwell said in a statement. "In addition, it proves that our tribe satisfies all requirements for our land to be taken into trust."

 

The Carcieri decision, so named because it involved an ongoing dispute between Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri and the Narragansett tribe, centered on the phrase "now under federal jurisdiction."

 

In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer gave tribes like the Mashpee hope by saying if they could prove they were under federal jurisdiction prior to 1934 through a treaty, they might have a case for trust lands. In 2011, the bureau approved the trust application of the Cowlitz tribe in Washington, which was federally recognized in 2000, on those grounds.

 

The Mashpee tribe contends that it meets standards established in the Cowlitz decision, especially in light of the agreement between the king and the tribe to protect Mashpee lands and fishing rights.

 

In 1763, Wampanoag school teacher Reuben Cognehew traveled to England to complain that Colonial overseers were not doing enough to protect the tribe's land.

 

The king granted the Mashpee tribe the authority to "annually elect a moderator and five overseers, three of which were to be Mashpees, a town clerk, treasurer, and one or more constables. The overseers were to regulate fisheries, lease lands, and apportion land and meadow among the Mashpee proprietors themselves."

 

When the U.S. Constitution was enacted 23 years later, the federal government took over the responsibility for enforcing that agreement, the tribe asserts. "As the Supreme Court has long held, the United States, upon acquisition of territory from another sovereign, is bound by the rights and property confirmed to tribes by that sovereign, whether those appear in treaty or statute," the report says.

 

The report argues that the tribe was under federal jurisdiction well before 1934 and after, even though the federal government didn't recognize it officially until 2007.

 

Not only was the tribe under federal jurisdiction, but there is no evidence the federal government attempted to end its control — standards established in the Cowlitz decision, the report says. "Federal jurisdiction continues unless and until explicitly terminated by Congress," it reads.

 

When Mashpee was incorporated as a town in 1870 and its land allotted to tribe members, that constituted an illegal act by the state, the report says. "The United States had a legal responsibility to protect the tribe in occupation of its lands and failed to do so at the time."

 

Evidence of the Mashpee tribe being under federal jurisdiction goes beyond the 1763 agreement with the British crown, according to the document. The Mashpee tribe's fishing rights are similar to those of the Stillaguamish tribe, which are cited by the Interior Department in the Cowlitz decision.

 

The Stillaguamish were recognized in 1976.

 

The report also points to tribe members attending a school for American Indians only called the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania as proof of federal control over tribe members. The tribe was also included in federal census counts in the early part of the 20th century.

 

Also, the federal government investigated the tribe and decided not to move it in the 1820s, as it did other tribes — an exercise of federal authority over the Mashpee Wampanoag, the attorneys contend.

 

One potential problem for the tribe is that when it petitioned to be included in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, an official at the Indian Office concluded the Mashpee tribe was not under federal jurisdiction.

 

"This federal official was obviously ignorant both of the prior federal relationship with the tribe and of the continued existence of the tribe's reservation "»," the tribe's attorneys argue. The tribe should have qualified because it had occupied territory "continuously and without interruption."

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130127/NEWS/301270322/-1/NEWSLETTER100

Is Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 'under federal jurisdiction?'

GUEST OPINION: Is Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 'under federal jurisdiction?'

By James P. Lynch

Posted Jan 17, 2013

 

Purchase this photo

Taunton Gazette

Gov. Deval Patrick, left, and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, whose tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell is at right, reached a casino compact on Wednesday, July 10, 2012. The compact, which would govern the operation of a proposed tribal casino in Taunton, calls for 21.5 percent of gross gaming revenue from the tribe to go to the state. A 6.5 percent share of that amount would be used for mitigation in communities affected by the casino, but no specific projects are identified.

As we are all aware, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has been publicly stating that the tribe is actively in the process of petitioning the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to have land within the city of Taunton taken into federal trust as a federal Indian reservation. As of this writing, their petition to the BIA is incomplete, in that it is still lacking the required historical narrative proving, as required by federal regulations, that the tribe maintained a ”significant historical presence” in southeastern Massachusetts. Thus, the Mashpee’s persistent claims to the contrary, BIA’s consideration of their petition to have lands taken into federal trust cannot proceed without this essential information.

Additionally, the tribe is faced with the legal barrier placed before it to have land taken into federal trust by virtue of the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in the matter of Carcieri v. Salazar. In this decision the Court decided that Indian tribes not “under federal jurisdiction” prior to the 1934 enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act could not have lands taken into trust after that date.

I would be the first to agree that from the outside the matter of “under federal jurisdiction” is confusing. What is this concept or status? The Mashpee have argued that they were under federal jurisdiction prior to 1934 citing the on-going litigation concerning the Cowlitz tribe of Washington State and their interpretation of “under federal jurisdiction” made in their quest to also have land taken into federal trust as an Indian reservation for gaming purposes. This issue is currently in federal appellate court.

Here is the underlying problem. The Cowlitz are claiming that prior to 1934 individual members of the Cowlitz Indian community received assistance from the regional Indian Agent. They are interpreting such individual Indian assistance writ large as proof that the tribe was under or subject to federal jurisdiction.

At that time, BIA assistance was based upon two criteria: assistance to Indian individuals regardless of tribal affiliation who could prove that they met the federal Indian blood quantum requirement (usually 50 percent) to be recognized as a qualified Indian. Such qualified individuals regardless of any tribal affiliation could, and did as individuals, receive assistance from the Indian agency such as medical services, land allotments, school attendance etc. This criteria was an ethnic-phenotypically -based non-tribal and non-jurisdictional form of assistance.

Secondly, recognized Indian tribes residing upon federally established Indian reservations or restricted fee federal public domain lands set aside for Indian use, such as treaty tribes, pueblos, and rancherias received block aid via annual Congressional budgetary enactments disbursed by BIA. Such land set-asides involved jurisdictional and at times non-jurisdictional matters.

That is why the BIA has always maintained two legal definitions that governed its ability to provide assistance or aid. A definition of tribe, and a separate definition of what constitutes an Indian individual. Each had its own regulatory stream governing such aid. But neither definition depended on the concept of jurisdiction as a functional necessity for providing assistance to a tribe or individual. Currently both BIA and the Cowlitz are trying to merge both aid and jurisdiction as one and the same. This is not the case.

Federal jurisdiction means, under, or, completely subject to federal law vs. under state jurisdiction which means under or subject to state law. In 1928 there were extensive congressional hearings on this very subject which addressed the issue of extending the scope of federal jurisdiction over Indian reservations. On some Indian reservations its occupants were subject to federal law for specific serious offenses and subject to state law or jurisdiction otherwise. Thus, such an entity was not under federal jurisdiction as called for in the Carceri decision.

On the other hand, some tribal reservations, especially treaty-established reservations that were created on lands that, at the time, were not states, but federal territories, were completely subject to federal jurisdiction or law. Then, there were some Indian settlements such as California Indian rancherias, whilst residing upon federally-owned lands, its Indian occupants were completely subject to state legal jurisdiction.

This is what the U.S. Supreme Court was addressing in its Carceri v. Salazar decision. The court found that circa 1937 the Narragansett Indian tribe of Rhode Island was not under federal jurisdiction but subject solely to Rhode Island state law or jurisdiction. Thus the tribe could not have land taken into federal trust.

In regards to the Mashpee, the bottom line is, that from its founding in 1651 as a distinct Christian Indian community, the Indians at Mashpee were always totally subject to colony, provincial, or commonwealth legal jurisdiction. This was their status as a state created municipality in 1934.

In sum, the Mashpee cannot validly prove that they maintained a “significant historical presence in Southeastern Massachusetts as defined by federal regulations (25 CFR 292) nor, can they meet the “under federal jurisdiction” requirement as posited in the Carceri decision. Barring congressional action enacting specific legislation establishing a reservation for the tribe in Taunton (a highly unlikely action by the Congress), Mashpee cannot hope to acquire the land and legal status necessary to establish a tribal-based gaming facility under the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in Massachusetts.

James P. Lynch is principal and owner of Waterbury, Conn.-based, Historical Consulting & Research Services. He has been a practicing ethno-historical researcher and consultant for more than 25 years. He is also the author of four books on tribal history, colonial-tribal land relations and federal Indian policy.
Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/newsnow/x1922393572/GUEST-OPINION-Is-Mashpee-Wampanoag-Tribe-under-federal-jurisdiction#ixzz2ItkbAQIL