Meetings & Information




*****************************
****************************************************
MUST READ:
GET THE FACTS!






Showing posts with label Oneida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oneida. Show all posts

Friday, February 6, 2015

Tribe fighting Redskins name plans ‘Oz’ casino despite author’s racist past




Tribe fighting Redskins name plans ‘Oz’ casino despite author’s racist past




The Oneida Indian Nation, owner of the renowned Turning Stone Resort Casino in Verona, announced plans to expand its Upstate New York operations with a new $20 million, 67,000-square-foot casino in the Village of Chittenango. (Oneida Indian Nation )

February 6


The Native American tribe leading the movement to change the name of the Washington Redskins plans to open a $20 million casino that pays homage to the work of L. Frank Baum, who was born in this village outside Syracuse and later wrote “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.”
 
Just one problem with the Oneida Indian Nation’s Yellow Brick Road Casino: A decade before Baum wrote one of this country’s most celebrated children’s tales, he campaigned for a Native American genocide.

“The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians,” he wrote in late 1890 for the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in South Dakota. “Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; it’s better that they should die than live the miserable wretches that they are.”

Two weeks later, Baum, the newspaper’s publisher, reiterated his point in an editorial written after the slaughter of as many as 300 Sioux at Wounded Knee. He demanded that the U.S. government “wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

So why would the Oneida — a small tribe that has condemned the Redskins for a name they consider patently racist — embrace the legacy of a writer whose own descendants have apologized for his patent racism?

That apology is the reason, said Oneida leader Ray Halbritter, calling the tribe’s future casino the product of reconciliation.

“I think that’s a wonderful message — that we’re able to overcome by repentance and by forgiveness,” Halbritter said. “It’s looking forward rather than backward.”

But some Native Americans have voiced astonishment over the tribute to Baum.

Ernestine Chasing Hawk, a descendant of the Wounded Knee victims, called the Oneida’s decision a betrayal.

“How can they be so ignorant of history and traitors to their own race?” she asked in an essay published in the Native American Times. “Would the Jews build a casino to honor Adolph Hitler?”

Halbritter insisted that the homage does not represent a “whitewashing of Baum’s writings,” but noted that his popular stories have noble themes and, obviously, immense commercial appeal. The tribe said no references to Baum will appear in the casino.

“We are aware that some people have difficulty separating the good from the bad,” he said. “I think we can separate and try to extract the good and focus on the good.”


In the battle for moral high ground, those who oppose the name of the Redskins often note that it was given to the team by another racist, George Preston Marshall. Halbritter referred to the former owner as a “famous segregationist” in a December 2013 Post op-ed.

Halbritter also argued the name was a demeaning term commonly used by conquering settlers — the very same settlers Baum urged to massacre the remaining Indians.

“The word is a slur that was screamed at Native Americans as they were forced from their lands at gunpoint,” Halbritter wrote, arguing that it was “unacceptable for a professional sports league to continue promoting such a derogatory epithet.”

In his two editorials, Baum most often referred to Native Americans as “Indians.”

Three times, though, he called them something else: “Redskins.”

‘A kind of madness’

In Chittenango, where the downtown sidewalks are paved with yellow bricks, any evidence of Baum’s diatribes is hard to find.

A weathered, wooden Tin Man welcomes visitors to the village in which Baum was born 158 years ago. The town of 5,000 holds an “Oz-Stravaganza!” festival each summer, and features a museum devoted to Baum called All Things Oz.

Many of Chittenango’s businesses also embrace his legacy. At the Land of Oz & Ends, a specialty antique shop, the shelves are stacked with themed kitsch: Wicked Witch shot glasses, Scarecrow “Ken” dolls and figurines with ruby slippers that click together as they play “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”

In 1888, Baum left New York and moved his family to South Dakota, determined to succeed in the burgeoning West. He opened a variety store, Baum’s Bazaar, but when it failed, he took over a weekly newspaper at a time when violence often erupted between whites and Native Americans. That climate of intense fear, his biographers say, may help explain his hateful rants.

“He was just reflecting back the ethos of the time,” said Evan I. Schwartz, author of “Finding Oz: How L. Frank Baum Discovered the Great American Story.” “This was not an unusual thing to say, it was just unusual that it was L. Frank Baum, and we’re looking at it in the context of today.”

Still, even in the context of that age, those who have studied Baum’s life struggle to understand his motivation.

His mother-in-law, Matilda Joslyn Gage, was a central figure of the women’s suffrage movement and a significant influence on Baum. At almost the exact same time he called for the mass murders of Indians, Baum was campaigning for women’s rights.

“The key to the success of our country is tolerance,” Baum wrote in an editorial that appears in Schwartz’s book. “Bigotry, if not wholly unknown, is so intolerable, as to be nearly entirely suppressed.”

Baum published his first controversial editorial soon after the death of Sitting Bull, who, in the author’s estimation, was the last Indian worthy of life.

“With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished,” Baum wrote, “and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them.”

The ensuing carnage at Wounded Knee drew no sympathy from Baum, who argued that only genocide would prevent a vengeful Indian uprising.

“Baum’s vicious response was a kind of madness,” wrote Rebecca Loncraine, author of “The Real Wizard of Oz: The Life and Times of L. Frank Baum.” “His thoughtless comments were incoherent, full of the pain and frustration of his own life out on the prairie.”

His newspaper soon closed, and Baum, then a failure in all he had pursued, moved back East. There, a decade later, he introduced readers to the world of Oz, penning 14 books in the popular series.

In 1919, Baum died famous and successful, achieving even more notoriety two decades later when “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” was made into a movie. According to the Library of Congress, it is the most-watched film of all time.

And yet, the editorials so deeply stained his legacy that — 87 years after he died — two of his descendants traveled to a South Dakota reservation in 2006 to ask for forgiveness. Gita Morena and Mac Hudson apologized to Sioux families whose ancestors were killed in the massacre.

“We stand before you and before the citizens of both our great nations to suggest,” their statement read, “that ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ a great American fairy tale, and the Massacre at Wounded Knee, a great American tragedy, be forever joined in the hearts, minds and memories of all our people.”

The power of ‘Oz’

The Oneida, a tribe of just 1,000 members, have ruled gambling in central New York for two decades.

 Turning Stone Resort Casino sprawls over 3,400 acres of Indian land 30 miles east of Syracuse and attracts more than 4.5 million guests a year. With its four hotels, 72 holes of golf and enough gaming space to hold two football fields, the casino would look at home on the Las Vegas Strip.

Turning Stone generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Oneida, which has helped fund the “Change the Mascot” campaign for nearly the past two years. The tribe has commissioned studies, hosted a symposium, paid for radio ads in cities where the Redskins are playing football and supported a bevy of demonstrations nationwide.

But the tribe’s highly profitable stranglehold on gaming in central New York could be nearing its end.

In mid-December, a state board recommended that three non-Indian casinos receive casino licenses, including an extravagant $425 million project planned to open 45 miles west of Syracuse.

Less than a week later, Halbritter announced the Yellow Brick Road Casino, a more casual and much smaller gambling venture than Turning Stone. It’s scheduled to open this spring and offer 430 slot machines, a 500-seat bingo hall, two dining options, a bar and a general store — all paying tribute to Oz.

The tribe, which has also sponsored the village’s annual festival, chose the theme in part because it honors Chittenango’s central identity, and the Oneida wanted local support.

“We think this can be mutually beneficial,” said tribe spokesman Joel Barkin. “With any development project, if you have buy-in from the town and the political leadership and the community, that’s always better.”

But the Oneida also recognized a potentially lucrative business opportunity. The Oz brand has immense marketing value. News of the casino appeared in the Guardian, the Boston Globe and the New York Times.

“It went kind of crazy when we announced it,” Barkin said. “There are few things that are more Americana than ‘The Wizard of Oz.’ ”

The location also provides the Oneida a competitive advantage over their would-be rival.

They own thousands of acres in central New York, but few parcels are more accessible from Syracuse, the region’s hub, than the selected site along Route 5. Drivers from the city can reach Chittenango in just 25 minutes — about half the time it would take them to reach the anticipated non-Indian casino.

Chittenango Mayor Ronny Goeler said he hopes the casino, expected to create 250 jobs, will revitalize a place that has struggled for a decade.

First, a highway project diverted traffic away from downtown, then came the recession. Some businesses didn’t survive, including Oz Cream and the Emerald City Grill.

Maybe, Goeler said, the Oneida can change things. “I thought it was great,” he said, “that someone wanted to invest that much time and money and energy into our village.”

But, given Baum’s racism, not everyone here




http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tribe-fighting-redskins-name-builds-casino-honoring-racist-wizard-of-oz-author/2015/02/06/9d779c62-ac9f-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html


Saturday, August 23, 2014

Federal government, Oneida Indian Nation sign historic land trust agreement



Federal government, Oneida Indian Nation sign historic land trust agreement


By Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com 
Follow on Twitter 
on August 22, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Oneida Indian Nation and federal government completed their historic land trust agreement Thursday, ending almost a decade of legal disputes that strained relations between the Oneidas and their neighbors.
 
With the stroke of a pen in a private signing ceremony in the Oneida Nation Council House, the federal government transferred into trust about 13,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties.
 
The Oneidas called it one of the largest transfers of land into trust in modern American history. The action, first approved by the federal government in 2008, means the land will be exempt permanently from state and local taxes and control.
 
The documents signed by Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter and Johnna Blackhair, acting regional director of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, affects some 330 parcels in the two counties, according to an Oneida spokesman.
 
"With the federal government ending disputes against our sovereignty and transferring 13,000 acres of our homeland into trust, the Oneida Indian Nation now has reclaimed more homeland than we have ever had since 1824," Halbritter said in remarks at the ceremony.
 
The Oneidas will be allowed to add an an additional 12,000 acres in Madison and Oneida to the federal trust as part of a deal approved in March by a federal judge.
 
Halbritter said the land transfer "represents the realization of generations of diligence and perseverance in the face of negligence, disrespect and, at times, outright hostility. Over many decades, we have worked to resuscitate our culture and rejuvenate our community."
 
He added, "While we appreciate the federal government agreeing to end disputes against our sovereignty, this is not an act of charity. This is not (an) achievement being given to us -- a proud and strong people have reclaimed our rights to be universally recognized as the sovereign stewards of this land. That achievement came after decades of work to rejuvenate and reestablish our community."
 
The land taken into the tax-free federal trust includes the profitable Turning Stone Resort Casino in Verona. Under a separate deal with the state, the Oneidas are expected to pay about $50 million a year to the state in return for a casino monopoly in a 10-county area.


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/federal_government_oneida_indian_nation_sign_historic_land_trust_agreement.html#comments


Friday, May 17, 2013

The Universal Delusion of Proponents

The proliferation of OTB Parlors in New York, carefully placed in low income neighborhoods, invited crime, sucked discretionary income from the local economy, eliminated local businesses no longer able to compete with the crime and impoverished wide swaths.

Incapable of learning from experience, lawmakers pursue predatory gambling and delude themselves,  just as Massachusetts has, that somehow tourists will flock.


Cuomo deals LI out

Rejects OTB slots in Nassau, Suffolk

  • Posted: 1:30 AM, May 17, 2013
ALBANY — Nassau and Suffolk county officials are pushing Gov. Cuomo to allow slot machines on Long Island as part of his plan to expand legalized gambling in the state.
Cuomo’s response? No dice.

Joseph G. Cairo, president and CEO of Nassau Off-Track Betting Corp., said the campaign to get state authorization for video slots at Nassau off-track-betting sites is part of a “multifaceted plan” to offer the public a “wider range of gaming options.”

While both counties for years have been lobbying for the proposal, Cuomo spokesman Matthew Wing said the idea wasn’t being discussed as part of casino-gambling talks with legislative leaders.

$PIN THE WHEEL: Gov. Cuomo and Oneida Indian Nation leader Ray Halbritter sign upstate-casino deal yesterday.
AP
 
$PIN THE WHEEL: Gov. Cuomo and Oneida Indian Nation leader Ray Halbritter sign upstate-casino deal yesterday.

But GOP Sen. Dean Skelos of Nassau, the co-head of the state Senate, supports video slots at Belmont Park racetrack.

A spokesman said Skelos has had conversations with Nassau and Suffolk officials about offering slots and is reviewing a bill sponsored by two Long Island lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Steven Englebright and Republican Sen. Phil Boyle, promoting the issue.

The measure specifies that such a facility would include “superior consumer amenities and conveniences to encourage and attract the patronage of tourists and other visitors from across the region, state and nation.”

Cuomo’s vision to bring Las Vegas-style casinos to the Empire State includes putting three upstate but none in the Big Apple and its suburbs for at least five years. He argues that downstate casinos “would be eating at the buffet table of an upstate casino.”

Cuomo’s plan also calls for letting a gambling commission — not the Legislature — choose vendors and the sites. A video-slot-machine casino run by Nassau and Suffolk OTBs would allow the Legislature to keep control of patronage jobs at such a gambling emporium.

The state’s existing nine racinos, which offer video slot machines and electronic table games without live dealers, have grown quickly. Racino operators say it makes the most sense to expand their facilities into full-fledged, Vegas-style casinos.

The Resorts World Aqueduct racino in Queens has generated more than $1 billion in total revenue since opening in October 2011, pulling in nearly $2 million a day.

From April 2012 to April 2013, Resorts World posted an impressive, 17 percent revenue increase.
In comparison, slot revenues slid 14 percent in Atlantic City, NJ, and 7 percent in Connecticut and declined for a fifth straight month in Pennsylvania.

“Resorts World Casino has been nothing short of an absolute success for the Queens community,” said Democratic State Sen. James Sanders.

Meanwhile, Cuomo struck a deal with the Oneida Indian Nation to give it exclusive casino rights in central New York in exchange for the state treasury’s receiving 25 percent of slot revenue from the Turning Stone Resort Casino in Verona. The deal also settles a decades-old land dispute.
 
 

Long Island casino in play in NY negotiations

Updated 1:44 pm, Thursday, May 16, 2013

 
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Support grew Thursday for a proposal to build a casino on Long Island with video slot machines as legislators and the governor negotiated behind closed doors to expand casino gambling in New York.
 
A legislative bill with majority party sponsors proposes a casino with 2,000 video slot machines run by the off-track betting agencies in Nassau and Suffolk counties. That could cement critical Republican support from the region's senators for Gov. Andrew Cuomo's statewide casino proposal.
 
"We are working closely with our state delegation to allow a regional video lottery terminal facility," said Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone on Thursday. "By operating this facility through a partnership between Nassau and Suffolk OTB, we will ensure that the maximum amount of revenue benefits Long Island residents."
 
Cuomo and legislative leaders are negotiating a plan to authorize three Las Vegas-style casinos. The idea of a Long Island slots-only casino runs counter to Cuomo's public proposal of placing only three casinos upstate.
 
"It's huge," Nassau County OTB President and CEO Joseph Cairo told The Associated Press. "The Senate has indicated to me it is part of the discussions of the overall (casino) package."
 
Cairo, who is also a county Republican committee first vice chairman, said he has spoken to Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Nassau County about the proposal, which has quietly been discussed for months in Albany. He said they spoke of a proposal to build a video slot casino on the Nassau-Suffolk line, where it could draw from Long Island's 3 million residents. He said another version would create two facilities, each with 1,000 video slot machines.
 
"I think the senator is conceptually behind it and I spoke to him many times," Cairo said. "I think it will be on the table for rest of the session."
 
Within hours of the AP publishing a story about the Long Island casino negotiations, Cairo put out statement contradicting his initial comments on the sensitive, closed-door talks. Cairo, through a spokesman, refused to say why he changed his position or if he had been contacted by the Cuomo administration, which strongly denies the proposal is part of negotiations.
 
Cuomo spokesman Matt Wing said the Cuomo administration didn't contact Cairo.
 
Asked about the role of the proposal in closed-door casino negotiations, Skelos' spokeswoman Kelly Cummings said: "We continue to discuss all aspect of the gaming and casino issues in the five weeks that remain in session."
 
The bill sponsored by Assemblyman Steven Englebright, a Suffolk County Democrat, states the facility would include "superior consumer amenities and conveniences to encourage and attract the patronage of tourists and other visitors from across the region, state and nation." He didn't respond to a request for comment. 
 
The Senate bill is sponsored by Republican Sen. Phil Boyle of Long Island.
 
"Nassau and Suffolk have been pushing this proposal for several years," Wing said. "It has and is not part of any casino gaming negotiations or discussions."
 
In Albany, the closed-door "leaders meetings" between the governor and legislative leaders are secret. Major proposals often aren't announced until a deal is struck and quickly rushed to a vote in the Legislature without public hearings.
 
The proposal would be contrary to Cuomo's public demands that his gambling commission chose vendors; that operators, not the Legislature, be involved in choosing sites; and that privately run casinos be restricted to upstate.
 
A video slot machine casino run by Nassau and Suffolk OTBs would maintain the Legislature's hold on patronage jobs in the facility.
 
Most of the nine existing "racino" centers [Slot Barns], which offer video slot machines but not table games, have grown quickly. Their operators argue they are the best candidates to be turned into the privately run casinos Cuomo proposes for upstate and, five years later, the New York City area.
 
One of Albany's most powerful lobbyists, former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, lobbies for Nassau and Suffolk counties OTBs and on state casino issues, according to his state lobbying registration. He didn't respond to a request for comment on the proposal.
 

Monday, October 8, 2012

Oneida Says Locals Need Casino Veto


Oneida caring about local residents? Oneida promoting local approval? Or preventing competition? 




October 7, 2012

Tribe Says Locals Need Casino Veto
BY JACOB GERSHMAN

An upstate New York Indian tribe is pressuring Albany to give local governments and communities veto power over new casinos, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo and lawmakers consider expanding the scope of gambling.

The Oneida Indian Nation, which operates a full-scale resort casino in central New York east of Syracuse, is financing a new advocacy group that supports giving local legislative bodies or voters a formal say over locating casinos. The group, New Yorkers for Local Approval of Casinos, is raising money for an advertising and mailing campaign and is trying to draw support from restaurant owners, lawmakers and opponents of ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444070104578043013433051522.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Oneida Indian Nation Trust Status Encounters Setback


The decision below has significance in Massachusetts with both the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Aquinnah Tribe.

Oneida Indian Nation Trust Status Encounters Setback



Madison County
(Wampsville, NY – Oct. 2012) U.S. District Court remands land into trust case back to the Department of the Interior for reconsideration and to determine if the Oneida Indian Nation of New York was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 so as to qualify for tax-free land into trust

County officials say that, in a 46-page decision issued last week, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence E. Kahn determined that the Oneida Indian Nation of New York’s ability to place land into a tax-free federal trust depended on whether the OIN was under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

Following the clear direction of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, Kahn wrote “[I]n order for DOI to have placed the land into trust for the OIN lawfully, the OIN must have been under federal jurisdiction in 1934.”

According to county officials, the Court went on to hold “that a remand to DOI to establish a record on and determine the outcome of the jurisdictional question raised by Carcieri is the proper course of action at this point.”

The decision reads that following the DOI determination, a new Record of Decision would be issued that would be subject to further court review and, at that time, each of the parties’ arguments in their current motions for summary judgment could be renewed and considered.

“This is a clear setback to the OIN’s plans to place thousands of acres of lands scattered over Central New York into a real property tax-free trust status,” said Supervisor Rocco DiVeronica (R – Lenox) chairman of the Madison County Board of Supervisors Native American Affairs Committee. “The counties and state have presented extensive historical documents and expert reports showing that this group, the modern day ‘Oneida Indian Nation of New York,’ was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and are not entitled to the benefit of the Indian Reorganization Act’s land-into-trust provisions.”

In the meantime, county officials said in a statement last week, the OIN refuses to pay real property taxes, interest and penalties. Those sums are nearing $10 million, DiVeronica said.

“With the land not in trust, interest on the unpaid taxes will continue to accrue and will be part of the collection effort in separate proceedings,” DiVeronica said.

Pictured is Rocco J. DiVeronica.

http://madisoncountycourier.com/?p=36093

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Oneida Indian Land Claims Bears on Massachusetts


This case has great bearing on Massachusetts --

Oneida Indian Nation land intro trust dispute stalled in court again

ALBANY — As it has been in decades of court battles between the Oneida Indian Nation and local municipalities, the status of the Nation’s reservation continued to be at the epicenter of debate in a district court decision in the land-into-trust case.

The decision, issued Monday, combined similar lawsuits filed against the Nation and the Department of Interior by Madison and Oneida counties, the Town of Verona, City of Oneida, the Central New York Fair Business Association and Upstate Citizens for Equality over the Nation’s 2005 request to put more than 17,000 acres into federal trust for the exclusive use of the tribe. District Court Judge Lawrence Kahn ruled Monday that the DOI’s 2008 decision to accept more than 13,000 acres inadequately considered the request before its approval.

CHECK IT OUT: Read Judge Kahn's decision here.

Prior Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which allows tribal land to be placed into trust, limits the DOI’s ability to only accept land for tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934 when the IRA was enacted. It was clear the DOI’s acceptance of the land into trust did not consider that requirement, Kahn says.

“That is, the operative question for a court or the agency in determining whether trust authority may properly be exercised is whether the tribe in question was federally recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934 – not whether the tribe was federally recognized and under federal jurisdiction at the time of the trust decision,” Kahn says.

Instead of issuing a decision by the court on the Nation’s status in 1934, Kahn remanded the review of the land into trust application to the DOI, defaulting to its “specific expertise that the court lacks.” Kahn recognizes his decision will result in more litigation and that the issue has “languished” in courts for “too long.” This issue must be decided before anything else in the remaining land-into-trust lawsuits can be resolved. Once the DOI extensively revisits the status and issues a revised decision for the court to review, the remaining arguments will be heard.

Both Madison County and the Nation continue to aggressively back their respective arguments in regards to the reservation’s status. “The counties and state have presented extensive historical documents and expert reports showing that this group, the modern day ‘Oneida Indian Nation of New York,’ was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and are not entitled to the benefit of the Indian Reorganization Act’s land into trust provisions,” Madison County Native American Affairs Committee Chairman Rocky DiVeronica said in a statement. “This is a clear setback to the OIN’s plans to place thousands of acres of lands scattered over Central New York into a real property tax-free trust status.”

Until the issue is resolved, land owned by the Nation continues to accrue unpaid property taxes that the county estimates to be nearly $10 million.

Similarly, the Nation upholds its argument that its reservation was established long before 1934.

“The action was a procedural direction by the court asking for a supplemental finding by the federal agency that has already placed 13,000 acres of Oneida Indian Nation land into federal trust,” OIN spokesman Dan Smith said in a statement. “The evidence is overwhelming that the federal government recognized the Oneida Nation in 1934 and the courts and the Department of Interior repeatedly have stated that the Oneida Indian reservation has remained intact since 1794. It is time to move beyond these legal conflicts and instead work to build a more prosperous path for the future of all of our communities.”

The Nation’s original request included more than 17,000 acres of land to be placed into federal trust. It consisted of almost 3,500 acres in Oneida County, including the Turning Stone Casino Resort, several golf courses and convenience stores, along with 6,500 acres in both counties where the Nation has housing, government, activities, gas stations, agricultural land, marinas and hunting land, and an additional 7,500 acres of agricultural lands.

http://oneidadispatch.com/articles/2012/09/26/news/doc5063a1e7519f8045728064.txt

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Oneida foreclosure





N.Y. Second Circuit Court won’t rule on Oneida Indian Nation reservation status in foreclosure case

NEW YORK -- One decision is left to be made in the foreclosure case between the Oneida Indian Nation and Madison and Oneida counties in federal courts. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that it won’t do it.

In a decision dated Aug. 16, the Second Circuit said it wouldn’t rehear arguments in the case over whether or not the Nation’s reservation was ever disestablished.

The foreclosure case between the Oneida Indian Nation and Madison and Oneida counties reached the Supreme Court last year but after the Nation waived its sovereign immunity, which voided half of the arguments in the case, the Supreme Court kicked the decision on the status of its reservation back to the Second Circuit.

Later last year the Second Circuit said it wouldn’t make a decision on its status, advised the lower court to do the same and asked that the issue be sent back to state court for clarification.

Before that could happen, Madison County submitted an application for the entire Second Circuit Court to rehear the case.

Because of the 2003 ruling in Sherrill, which said the reservation wasn’t disestablished, the court said it didn’t have authority to reverse that decision without an en banc hearing, or arguments heard by the entire court instead of just a three-judge panel.

Last week, the court ruled that it would not do that.

Although disappointed but not surprised, county officials are expected to meet Wednesday to decide what their next step will be, but Administrative Assistant Mark Scimone said “since the Supreme Court recently granted review of this issue, it hopefully will again.”

David Shraver, an attorney from Nixon Peabody, the law firm that represents the county in this case, said “applications for rehearing en banc (by the full court) are rarely granted by the Second Circuit.”

“Since the Supreme Court granted review of this question once, it may look favorably on a petition for a writ of certiorari to review it again,” he said. “The land claim has been dismissed and is not affected by this development.”

Nation Spokesman Dan Smith said “we are pleased that today’s ruling puts an end to legal challenges to the status of the Oneida reservation. This ruling is good news for Oneida members, our more than 4,500 employees and their families and for the entire Central New York region. This decision allows everyone to finally move beyond the conflicts of the past and chart a new, more prosperous path for the future.

“This Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling falls in line with two previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the Oneida Nation reservation was never disestablished and that the Treaty of Canandaigua remains valid in the eyes of the federal government. This ruling puts an end to more than a decade of litigation over the existence of the Oneida reservation.”


http://www.oneidadispatch.com/articles/2012/08/21/news/doc50342697719ed543333191.txt

Oneidas, counties head to court again





Oneidas, counties might head to court again
By ELIZABETH COOPER
 
Posted Sep 08, 2012
 

The lawsuits between the Oneida Indian Nation and the governments that surround it could be heading back to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente said county lawyers might bring the question to the highest court about whether the Nation's historic 300,000-acre reservation still has legal standing.

That land now belongs mostly to hundreds of separate non-Indian property owners. The Nation still holds about 32 acres, which are home to its Turning Stone Resort Casino.

“The lawyers are looking it over,” he said.

Picente still hopes to reach a negotiated settlement with the Nation, but the reservation's status is an important issue in the ongoing litigation.

County lawyers also must confer with New York state, which has been party to the litigation in the past, Picente said.

Madison County Attorney John Campanie confirmed that his county is moving along similar lines.
Nation officials declined to comment.

A possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling could have an impact on the Oneidas' ability to put 13,000 acres of land they purchased in Madison and Oneida counties into federal Indian trust.

Trust lands are not subject to state and local tax laws and other regulations. It might be easier for Indian nations to place historic reservation land into trust than other land.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, the case could have national impact, Albany Law School's Robert Batson said.

“It depends on how their question is framed,” he said of the impacts.

 Across the country, particularly in the western United States, there are reservations that still exist on maps despite the fact that many lots have been sold to non-Indians, he said.

If such land is sold back to an individual Indian or to a tribe, it can become Indian country again through the federal land-into trust process.

Seen this before?

These questions might sound familiar, and there is a reason.

In the 2005 case of the City of Sherrill vs. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Oneidas could not declare land it purchased within its historic reservation sovereign Indian country.

Prior to the ruling, the Oneidas had bought more than 13,000 acres within the historic boundaries in Oneida and Madison counties. They had declared it exempt from state and local tax laws and other regulations and had not paid property taxes on it for years.

After that ruling, Oneida and Madison counties moved to foreclose on the land over delinquent property taxes. The Nation filed suit, and among its arguments was that the parcels could not be foreclosed upon because of New York state property tax exemption laws for Indian land.

The question of whether the reservation still exists is key to the Nation's argument in the foreclosure case.

Assistant Oneida County Attorney Harris Samuels said the Sherrill decision applied to federal laws and not to the state law to which the Oneidas referred.

Also, it said only that the Nation could not impose its own laws over land they purchased within the historic reservation, and did not specify whether the reservation still exists.

Centuries-old treaties

Like many of the lawsuits between the Nation and its neighbors, the arguments center on treaties signed long ago.

The Oneidas' reservation was established in 1788.

But county officials point to a treaty from 1843 that paved the way for the 5,000 acres of land the Nation still owned to be sold to the state of New York.

The Oneidas, however, point to a decision by a lower federal court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, not to hear the question of whether the reservation exists. The same court ruled in 2003 that the reservation had not been disestablished.

It's the second Circuit Court's decision that the counties are taking to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x764811631/Oneidas-counties-might-head-to-court-again
 

Saturday, August 18, 2012

EXPANSION!


Aqueduct was barely sucking money from the poor in Queens, when the talk of EXPANSION began.

Even in Massachusetts, before the licensing process is finalized,  EXPANSION is being discussed. 





Now That Hot Slots Have Come To Queens, Casinos Want Live Table Games




(Nicole Woszczyna/Gothamist)

The opening of the new "Racino" at Aqueduct was such a smashing success that police reinforcements had to be called in to control the opening day crowds, who waited on line over three hours on Friday afternoon to get at those sad hot slots and WIN BIG. So now that gambling lobbyists have successfully brought the Resorts World electronic gaming temple to the Queens Aqueduct Racetrack, they're doubling down to add live table games to the mix. Soon enough happy gamblers will be lining up to "shoot the pasties off the nipples of a ten-foot bull-dyke and win a cotton-candy goat," just like in Vegas!

Gambling interests have spent more than $2.5 million on lobbying over the past years, the Post reports, with most of the focus going to opening slot machine "racinos" at the state's race tracks. Next year the New York Gaming Association will spend $1 million to push the state to legalize Vegas-style casinos—with card games and human dealers—in the Empire State. It's a win-win for casino owners, politicians, and the guv'ment, which can heavily tax the casinos. And it's better for the environment, too, because gambling addicts get to feed their monkeys locally, without burning fossil fuels in lengthy drives to Indian reservations.

Of course, as history shows, the Indians don't care about the environment as much as the white man, and they'd prefer gamblers to release tons of carbon dioxide in trips to their upstate tribal casinos, rather than source their addiction locally. Last year the Seneca and Oneida nations paid about $200,000 to lobbyists, and the Post speculates they'll surpass that this year, in an attempt to maintain their grip on the casino business in New York.


By John Del Signore in on October 31, 2011

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/31/now_that_hot_slots_have_come_to_que.php

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

There can never be any land in trust in the original 13 colonies






CAROL KELLEY, Plymouth: Senate should vote against casino compact
EDITOR’S NOTE: Gov. Deval Patrick has signed a casino compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, but before the tribe can build its proposed $500 million casino in Taunton, it needs to obtain U.S. Department of the Interior approval of a land-into-trust agreement.

There can never be any land in trust in the original 13 colonies because of the following court decisions:

The “property clause” of the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2),which concerns itself with federal territorial lands owned by the United States, has never applied in Massachusetts. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this. In a case known as Fletcher v. Peck, the court upheld the pre-emptive right of the original 13 colonies over their state land. There is no federal public domain land or federal reservation currently in the commonwealth, there never has been, nor can any be created since 25 USC. 465 with regulation 25 C.F.R. 151.9 only applies to other federal public domain lands that may be added to federal Indian reservations for the use of an Indian tribe which was recognized in 1934. No tribes in the 13 states were ever under federal jurisdiction or living on federal reserved land.

Alaska v. U.S. (2005): The federal government cannot establish reservation land without reserved rights. There is no federally owned land in any of the original 13 colonies. We entered the union with all of the land under state jurisdiction.

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs: Once land is transferred to state jurisdiction it is not eligible to be taken into federal jurisdiction. Feds can’t take land and give it to an Indian tribe.

Carcieri v. Salazar: No land in trust can be given to Indian tribes unless they were under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Lists of tribes that were recognized are available and were presented to the Supreme Court in Carcieri. They do not include the Mashpee Wampanoag.

Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, New York, and United States v. New York: Upheld the U.S. Court of Appeals, which said that granting the Oneida Indian Nation’s land claims would be too disruptive to the state, local government and current owners of the land.

Land claims are dead, yet Gov. Deval Patrick put it in the compact. This is illegal according to federal law and would be too disruptive to the town of Mashpee.


  

Carol Kelley lives in Plymouth.

Speak Outs can be up to 400 words. They should be about issues of broad appeal. Please submit articles to: Commentary Page, The Patriot Ledger, P.O. Box 699159, Quincy 02269-9159 or by e-mail to editpage@ledger.com.


Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/letters/x181547024/CAROL-KELLEY-Plymouth-Senate-should-vote-against-casino-compact#ixzz22EI9Sdca

Monday, July 16, 2012

Gov. Patrick had no reason to settle Mashpee's land claim

Who goes to prison next? Hmmm.....






LETTER: Gov. Patrick had no reason to settle Mashpee's land claim
Posted Jul 16, 2012
There is no reason to settle any land claim today as the Supreme Court has made it clear that 200-year-old land claims disrupt the community and rule against them.

Of course, the Oneida and Cayuga tribes of New York State filed for trust status on lands purchased when they knew they were about to lose their land claims, but usually tribes file for trust status through annexation on additional lands after they are given land in a settlement.

The Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in Connecticut is a prime example. The only thing final in a final negotiated settllement is that the tribe never gives back what they take.
 
The only thing for sure is that the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe will try to take more and the lawsuits never stop. Communities that have tribes for neighbors often put money toward lawsuits in their annual budget.



Has Gov. Deval Patrick been bought? I think his only alleged defense could be that he is not the only one.



Rich Tallcot
Chairman Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. Cayuga-Seneca Chapter
Union Springs, N.Y.

 

Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/newsnow/x1425378959/LETTER-Gov-Patrick-had-no-reason-to-settle-Mashpees-land-claim#ixzz20qUajtaF 












Monday, December 26, 2011

Not a Good Year for Indian Country in the Courts or Congress

Not a Good Year for Indian Country in the Courts or Congress
By Gale Courey Toensing

Read more:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/25/not-a-good-year-for-indian-country-in-the-courts-or-congress-69180
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/25/not-a-good-year-for-indian-country-in-the-courts-or-congress-69180#ixzz1hgzseRwE


The year 2011 provided few bright spots in the courts or Congress for Indian nations. The year began inauspiciously in January with a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit giving Michigan resident David Patchak standing to sue the Interior Department for taking land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe’s casino in Wayland County, Michigan. The suit also challenges the federal government’s holding of Indian trust lands under the Quiet Title Act, threatening trust lands for six years after Interior approves them. It was pretty much downhill in the courts from there. The legislature didn’t do much better. Congress not only failed to pass any news bills to benefit Indian country, it also failed to pass what legislators, the White House and Indian leaders say is Indian country’s “number one priority” – a clean Carcieri fix to repair the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous Carcieri v. Salazar ruling that has largely stripped the Interior Secretary’s authority to take land into trust for Indians. Here’s a sampling of the events:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling January 21 that said Patchak has standing to sue the Interior Department for taking into trust the 147 acres where the Gun Lake Tribe opened a casino in February. The ruling reversed a federal district court ruling that Patchak did not have standing and was barred from filing the complaint by the Quiet Title Act, which says the federal government cannot be divested of title to Indian trust lands. The core of this case is Patchak’s challenge that the Interior secretary was not authorized to take Gun Lake’s land into trust because the tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 when the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was passed—a challenge that relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Carcieri v. Salazar ruling in 2009. On December 13, the Supreme Court accepted petitions from the Gun Lake Tribe and the federal government to review the lower court ruling.
Ten days later, a coalition of forces filed a Carcieri challenge lawsuit in the Washington, D.C. district court, seeking to block the federal government’s decision to take 152 acres of land into trust as an initial reservation for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe to build a casino resort near Le Center, Washington. The plaintiffs are Clark County, the City of Vancouver, Washington, an anti-Cowlitz casino group called Citizens Against Casino shopping, two individuals who live near the Cowlitz’s proposed casino site, two non-Indian gaming companies. Dragonslayer, Inc., and Michels Development LLC who together own four La Center card rooms that stand to lose substantial business to a full scale casino resort, and by Grande Ronde, a tribe that operates a casino near Portland, Oregon.
Congress and the Senate passed the Nation Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in May and December, respectively. The bill gives the president unilateral authority to wage war anywhere in the world and detain anyone suspected of terrorism or “providing aid” to terrorists indefinitely without charge or trial, including U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil. Indigenous Peoples fear that the legislation could be used against them for asserting their right to self determination, sovereignty and the protection of their lands and resources against exploitation by governments or corporations.
One bright spot occurred in July when Interior’s Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk rescinded a controversial Bush-era ruling that prohibited the department from taking land into trust for gaming if it was not within an undefined “commutability distance.”
In April and August, Senators Dianne Feinstein and John McCain introduced scorched-earth proposed bills that would make it almost impossible for the Interior Department to take off-reservation land into trust for gaming—or any other purpose.
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision denying the Oneida Indian Nation the right to reclaim or be compensated for more than 260,000 acres of the nation’s ancestral lands that were illegally taken by the State of New York. The ruling conflicted with an earlier Supreme Court ruling that supported the nation’s claim for damages stemming from the illegal seizure of its land.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Death Knell for land claims

Supreme Court declines to hear tribal land claim case

ALBANY, N.Y., Oct. 18 (Reuters) - In a decision that could have implications for Native American tribes nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the Oneida Indian Nation seeking compensation for 250,000 acres of former tribal lands illegally purchased by New York in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The suit, first filed in 1974, alleged New York violated federal law when it purchased the land without Congressional approval. The suit claims the land, bought in central New York between 1795 and 1846, is now worth more than $500 million.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit tossed out the case last August, ruling that while the purchase of the land was illegal, granting the nation's claims would be too disruptive to the state, local governments and the current owners of the land in question.

"This is pretty much a death knell for other New York tribes' land claims," said Matthew Fletcher, a professor at Michigan State University Law School who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Oneida nation.

In its ruling, the Second Circuit invoked so-called equitable defenses, which may be used in unusual circumstances where the court believes that it would be unconscionable for a party to assert its rights. The success of such defenses by the government in tribal land claims was rare until a landmark 2005 Supreme Court case, City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, in which the Court ruled the nation could not extend its immunity from taxation to lands that it repurchased only recently.

"The (equitable) defense is properly applied to bar any ancient land claims that are disruptive of significant and justified societal expectations that have arisen as a result of a lapse of time during which the plaintiffs did not seek relief," the Court wrote in Sherrill.

TWO JUSTICES DISSENT

In the current case, the Second Circuit relied on Sherrill in holding that the amount of time that had passed since the land was purchased -- and the number of owners in the intervening years -- could prevent the state from preparing an adequate defense.

Because the Oneidas' claim was brought under a 1790 federal law, the ruling directly affects only tribes in states that existed at that time. But several experts said the decision lends legitimacy to the use of equitable defenses by the government in tribal land claims generally.

"Since Sherrill, there has been a lot of questioning of how to apply these defenses to other Indian land claims. This decision gives equitable defenses yet another layer of validity under the law," said Sarah Krakoff, a professor at Colorado University Law School and the former director of its American Indian Law Clinic.

Seth Waxman, the attorney for the Oneida Nation, said the Second Circuit was "grievously wrong" in applying equitable defenses and "overread" the Sherrill decision.

"The Supreme Court held that damage claims for unlawful misappropriation were not impacted at all by Sherrill, and I think that's what the Court would have held" in this case, Waxman said, referring to a part of the Sherrill decision that said tribes could still seek damages, despite the validity of the equitable defenses.

He also noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who concurred with the Sherrill decision when she was on the Second Circuit, took the unusual step of dissenting from the Court's decision not to hear the case, for which it gave no explanation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also indicated she would have heard the case.

POSSIBLE CLAIMS AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

In a statement, the Oneida nation said the Court's rejection of the case would not affect its litigation strategy moving forward, and that it would continue its practice of repurchasing former tribal lands and placing them in a trust.

"The Oneida Nation will continue the course of transferring its lands into trust while remaining open to discussing a resolution with any party that wishes to participate," Oneida spokesman Mark Emery said in a statement.

Tribes may yet benefit from the ruling, Matthew Fletcher said, because it could open the door to claims against the federal government for failing to prosecute states for the illegal land purchases.

"If the statute of limitations expires, the U.S. is potentially liable because they never enforced the statutes," Fletcher said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

The New York Attorney General's office declined to comment on Monday's decision.

The case is Oneida Indian Nation v. New York, et al, United States Supreme Court No. 10-1420.

For New York: Assistant Solicitor General Denise Hartman.

For Oneida Indian Nation: Seth Waxman of Wilmer-Hale in Washington, D.C.

(Reporting by Dan Wiessner)

Court ends Oneidas' land claim

Court ends Oneidas' land claim; 2 other cases still to be resolved
By ELIZABETH COOPER
Observer-Dispatch

The Oneida Indian Nation’s land claim is over — finally.

Two other court battles, however, still have yet to be resolved.

Since 1974, the Oneidas have been seeking damages for the loss of about 250,000 of their tribal land about two centuries ago.

The debate has been making its way through the courts for decades, and on Monday, the U.S Supreme Court announced it would not hear the case.

That means an August 2010 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed a lower court decision that said the Oneidas could pursue monetary damages from New York state will stand.

Those damages could have amounted to more than $500 million.

A 2007 lower court decision determined that the Nation could not reclaim the actual land.

“To get this completely wiped out is a positive step,” Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente said.

But, he added, it doesn’t mean an end to the litigation between the Nation and the state and local municipalities.

Soon after the Supreme Court’s decision was made public, the Oneidas issued a statement saying it “does not change our litigation strategy.”

The Nation is involved in two other lawsuits relating to the status of their land, and those are unaffected by Monday’s decision.

◦The state and municipalities are fighting a U.S. Department of the Interior decision to place about 1,300 acres of Nation-owned land into federal Indian trust. Such lands are not subject to state and local taxation or regulation.
◦In January, U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear a case about whether Oneida and Madison counties could foreclose on Oneida-owned property on which taxes had not been paid. That case is back before the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals.
“The Oneida Nation will continue the course of transferring its lands into trust while remaining open to discussing a resolution with any party that wishes to participate with respect and in good faith,” Nation spokesman Mark Emery said in a statement.

Indian law expert Robert Batson of Albany Law School said it was “no surprise” that the high court opted not to hear the land-claim case.

“The current Supreme Court has tended to side more with the states than with the tribes,” he said.

The Nation’s lawyer, Seth Waxman, of Albany’s Wilmer Hale law firm, said the decision not to hear the case does not reflect a belief by the court that it doesn’t have merit.

“It just means they didn’t find the case to be an appropriate one to raise the issues we raised,” he said.

The court gets about 10,000 petitions a year, but can only choose to hear about 80 of those, Waxman said.

Despite various treaties and federal laws, New York state purchased virtually all of the Oneidas' land between 1795 and 1846, at a time when the federal government was encouraging the relocation of Native Americans to the west.

Many Oneidas relocated to Wisconsin, while others now live in Thames, Ontario.

In recent decades, the land-claim case has taken different forms since an initial legal challenge in 1951, later withdrawn, and a test case filed in 1970 that reached the U.S. Supreme Court twice.

The case addressed by the appeals court in 2010 was filed in 1974, ultimately claiming the right to 250,000 acres of former Nation land and naming Oneida and Madison counties and New York state as defendants.

Supreme Court won't hear Oneida Nation's land claim

Supreme Court won't hear Oneida Nation's land claim
by Laura Hand

Citizens groups say their land is now their own

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from the Oneida Indian Nation claiming that it was underpaid for over 250,000 acres in onetime tribal lands in upstate New York that changed hands more than 150 years ago.

The justices on Monday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that threw out the Oneidas' land claims.

It's a cause for celebration, for groups that have been fighting the land claim for 40 years. Judy Bachman, with the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance says the ruling means there's no longer a threat of a tribal entity taking their property, and that property owners --mostly in Oneida and Madison Counties--won't have to buy extra property title protection insurance.

The Oneidas say the state illegally purchased land in upstate New York in a series of transactions in the 18th and 19th centuries. They claim New York underpaid for the land in Madison and Oneida counties by about $500,000, a sum now worth $500 million with interest compounded.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision on the lawsuit, originally filed in 1974, , the Oneida Indian Nation issued the following statement:

“This morning’s determination does not change the Oneida Indian Nation’s litigation strategy," said Mark Emery, Director of Media Relations for the Oneida Indian Nation. "The federal courts have ruled that the Oneida Nation reservation remains intact and that the Oneida Nation owes no taxes on its reservation. The Department of Interior has determined that more than 13,000 acres of the Nation’s re-acquired homelands should be transferred into trust. The Oneida Nation will continue the course of transferring its lands into trust while remaining open to discussing a resolution with any party that wishes to participate with respect and in good faith.”

But Bachman says that even the plan for the 13-thousand acres is now in question, because the land in question was never Federal land, and the Department of Interior has a different set of regulations for that. She also says that the Turning Stone Casino's status may even be in question---that casinos were 'allowed' in settlement for land claims, but now the land claim has been denied.

Clearly, the disputes, and the court cases are far from over, but Bachmann says today's ruling is significant, not only for the Oneida case, but also as a precedent for the 562 other Native American tribes looking for land settlements, most in the original 13 states.