Supreme Court Declines to Consider Curtailing NLRB’s Authority over Michigan Tribal Casinos

Friday, July 15, 2016

Recently, two Michigan tribes petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) authority to regulate labor practices at their casinos. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review either the Little River Band's or the Saginaw Chippewa's petition, leaving unfavorable Sixth Circuit rulings as binding precedent. 

In both NLRB v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government and Soaring Eagle Casino v. NLRB, the Sixth Circuit held that there is a presumption that federal laws generally apply equally to tribes on their reservation lands. However, a statute will not be applied to reservation lands if the law touches exclusive self-governance rights, if applying the law to the tribe would abrogate treaty rights, or if legislative history shows congressional intent to exclude tribes from the law's application. The Sixth Circuit held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) vests the NLRB with the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause, and that enforcement of the Act in Indian country is not restricted by one of the exceptions to general applicability.

Under these rulings, the NLRA bars employers, including on-reservation casinos, from taking any action that restrains employees from exercising their NLRA rights. Thus, in the Sixth Circuit (which includes the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee), tribal casinos may not discourage employees from forming unions or engaging in concerted activities to address working conditions. Tribes in these states must now familiarize themselves with NLRA rules and restrictions when dealing with union organizing activities or other collective employee actions.

This article was co-written by Janelle Grigaitis, a summer associate at Varnum in 2016. Janelle is currently a student at Vanderbilt University Law School.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-declines-to-consider-curtailing-nlrb-s-authority-over-michigan-tribal

Supreme Court Lets NLRB Authority Over Tribal Casinos Stand

Supreme Court Lets NLRB Authority Over Tribal Casinos Stand – 06-29-16

JUNE 28, 2016 BY WORKERS INDEPENDENT NEWS

By Doug Cunningham

Federal appeals court rulings giving the National Labor Relations Board authority over tribal casinos on Indiana land in Michigan will stand. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear an appeal of those federal court rulings.

The tribal casino industry generates approximately $28.5 billion a year, according to the National Indian Gaming Commission.

Related Posts: https://www.wortfm.org/supreme-court-lets-nlrb-authority-over-tribal-casinos-stand-06-29-16/

Supreme Court won’t hear Tribe’s case

By Susan Field

Matthew L.M. Fletcher isn’t surprised that the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a case involving dispute between Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the National Labor Relations Board.

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, there was a significant chance of a 4-4 tie, according to Fletcher, a professor of law and director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University.

Saginaw Chippewa tribal officials have battled the NLRB for years over employee efforts to unionize – allowed under federal law but banned by the Tribe, and Tribal officials had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges ruled that casinos in Michigan run by Native tribes can’t stop employees from petitioning others in the workplace to form unions.

Fletcher, who has closely followed the case, said the Tribe will likely start to negotiate with labor organizations and the NLRB going into the future.

He also said it’s possible the Tribe could exercise the treaty right it claims to exclude and have a “showdown” with the NLRB.

However, Fletcher said he is highly doubtful that the price of exercising that treaty right, which might mean shutting down the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort for a time, would be worth the fight.

Supreme Court justices on Monday declined to “wade into the legal battle putting Native American tribal sovereignty against the federal government’s power to regulate labor relations in cases involving casinos on Indian land in Michigan,” according to the news agency Reuters.

Rulings by the appeals court gave the NLRB authority over casinos on Indian land.

Now that the Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue, Reuters reported, the Republican-led Congress stands as the tribes’ best hope of avoiding NLRB jurisdiction.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in November to strip the NLRB’s authority over tribal business on Indian lands, but that has stalled in the Senate, according to Reuters.

That means tribes must abide by the two decisions from the Cincinnati-based federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Reuters reported.

Last year, that court ruled that the NLRB could order the Soaring Eagle to reinstate a housekeeper who was fired for soliciting union support.

That employee, Susan Lewis, is thrilled for her former co-workers.

Lewis, who got work at an Alma manufacturing business shortly after being fired from the casino, was never re-hired and said she would not return to the job now because the work environment would be hostile.

“But if I did, I’d do the same thing all over again,” Lewis said.

Three California Native American associations filed official support for the Tribe in its fight against the NLRB earlier this year.

Tribal public relations officials did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.themorningsun.com/general-news/20160630/supreme-court-wont-hear-tribes-case

NLRB Threatens Native Sovereignty

By Fred Wszolek

October 4, 2012

In 2004, largely under the mainstream media radar, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) dispossessed Native Americans. But this time, it was not their lands that were being taken away—it was their sovereignty.

It all began with Big Labor. In an effort to increase its declining membership, Big Labor saw the casinos operated by the Indian tribes on their reservations as an attractive organizing opportunity. If unionizing the casinos required undermining their sovereignty, so be it.

The Supreme Court may soon be asked to decide whether this was legal.

The Casinos Provide Tribal Governments With A Needed Source Of Revenue

Many Indian tribes, like the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians, were dispossessed of their historic lands and moved to arid, unproductive lands that were insufficient to support them. Tribal members lived in deplorable conditions and unemployment was high, and many subsisted largely on non-tribal welfare.

Conditions began to change in 1988, when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which accelerated Indian gaming operations. Casinos began to provide a solid source of revenue for tribal governments, enabling them to build schools, roads, and water and sewer facilities, and to provide housing and job training to their members. By 2004, the year the NLRB took action at the behest of union bosses, Indian gaming operations collectively generated nearly $20 billion in gross revenue and employed nearly 600,000 people. Today, those numbers are significantly higher.

NLRB Ignores Its Own Precedent and Inherent Tribal Sovereignty

For decades, the Board recognized the unique sovereign status of Indian tribes to regulate themselves and declined to assert jurisdiction over tribal business enterprises located on the reservation. The NLRB said it was “clear that individual Indians and Indian tribal governments, at least on reservation lands, are generally free from state or even in most instances federal intervention, unless Congress has specifically provided to the contrary.”

What was once “clear” to the Board then became blurred by Native American prosperity.

In a decision known as San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, the NLRB abruptly changed course – ignoring Congressional silence on the application of the Act to Indian tribes. It failed to accord any weight to the effect its decision would have on fundamental aspects of Native American sovereignty. And it trivialized Indian sovereignty in a manner never contemplated by Congress or the Supreme Court.

According to the Board, tribal self-governance is limited to “intramural” matters such as tribal membership and domestic relations. When a tribe engages in a successful business operation that employs non-members, the tribe loses its exemption as a sovereign entity—unlike local, state and Federal governments that employ non-residents, but remain exempt from the Act. This includes its ability to regulate tribal commerce and to exercise civil jurisdiction over non-members on the reservation without federal government interference.

All this was necessary, according to the NLRB in San Manuel, because “[a]s tribal business have grown and prospered, they have become significant employers of non-Indians and serious competitors with non-Indian owned businesses.”

According To The Department Of The Interior (DOI), San Manuel Is Inconsistent With
Federal Indian Law

The Department of the Interior, the agency charged with the responsibility of overseeing the Federal government’s relations with Indian tribes, does not share this point of view.

Not long after the NLRB began an investigation of the Little River Band of Ottawa Tribe for violating the Act under the authority of the Board’s decision in San Manuel, the Department’s Solicitor’s Office wrote the NLRB. The Solicitor wrote that the agency was without authority to proceed “as a matter of Federal Indian law” and urged the agency “to put an end to this enforcement action as soon as possible.” When the Board ignored DOI’s entreaty and issued a complaint anyway, the Solicitor announced that she would file a brief with the NLRB on behalf of the tribe.

In an administration beholden to Big Labor this was a cardinal offense, and one can only imagine what transpired behind the scenes in response to DOI’s apostasy. Although the Department eventually backed down, its letter to the Board made clear that it was doing so only “in the context of individual cases.” The Department asked for a meeting with the Acting General Counsel to discuss whether and how the Act should be applied to Indian tribes.

Meeting or no meeting, the NLRB has continued to apply the Act to tribes and their wholly-owned enterprises located on the reservation. And San Manuel remains an open invitation to union agents to encroach on tribal lands to organize tribal employees.

Supreme Court May Decide The Issue

The Board’s decision in San Manuel was upheld by the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but a case pending in the Tenth Circuit is unlikely to have the same outcome. The Tenth Circuit court has already disavowed the reasoning employed by the NLRB in San Manuel. A split in the circuits will make San Manuel ripe for Supreme Court review.

Congress Should Step In and Protect Tribal Sovereignty

The Board’s decision in San Manuel insists on separating the tribe’s commercial enterprises from its governmental functions, ignoring reality and the distinctive nature of tribal governments. It penalizes tribes for participating in the national economy and achieving the economic self-sufficiency that has always been the goal of Congressional Indian policy.

The Workforce Fairness Institute strongly supports a Congressional effort to undo San Manuel and restore the ability of Indian tribes to enact laws and be ruled by them and to regulate their wholly-owned commercial enterprises located on Native American lands. Indian sovereignty should be respected, not undermined, by the NLRB or anyone else.

Fred Wszolek is a spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).


Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/nlrb-threatens-native-sovereignty http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/nlrb-threatens-native-sovereignty#ixzz28etqFYcs

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

Published: Wednesday, September 26, 2012

 

By CAITLIN TRAYNOR
Contributing Writer
Twitter.com/DispatchCaitlin

 

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

More Woes for Casino

There are important similarities between the Cowlitz Tribe and the Mashpee Wampanoag/Genting proposal in Massachusetts.

The Mashpee Wampanoag/Genting proposal ignores the Tribe's lack of historical ties to Taunton, as well as their recent recognition, among other things.

The BIA's failures destroyed that fantasy.

In Our View: More Woes for Casino

Federal judge imposes deadline as Cowlitz Tribe and BIA lose momentum

 

Fortunately for Clark County residents who want to maintain the community's high quality of life, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's proposal for a mega-casino near La Center has encountered yet another obstacle, this one placed by the federal agency that tribal officials have long hoped would champion their cause.As we've learned recently, the Bureau of Indian Affairs either lost or never reviewed important historical documents provided by casino opponents. That led the Justice Department to seek a delay in the federal proceedings.

But U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts recently denied that request and — to make matters worse for casino hopefuls and BIA official — set an Oct. 5 deadline for making a difficult choice:

The federal government must decide if it will defend itself in court or rescind the BIA's 2010 decision that supported the casino proposal, which lacked the crucial information from casino foes. Clearly, the BIA and tribal officials are backed into a corner by the federal agency's blunder, and the lingering reality that casino opponents are making a compelling case.

A year and a half ago The Columbian applauded the decision by several casino foes to appeal the BIA ruling to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Those parties included Clark County, the city of Vancouver, owners of property near the proposed casino site on Interstate 5, La Center cardrooms and Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS).

And now, that appeal reveals itself to be eminently valid. (Among CARS members is Columbian Publisher Scott Campbell. The newspaper has long opposed the proposed casino because it would negatively impact the local quality of life).

How the BIA could've lost or ignored key data provided by casino foes is a question that must be answered after close scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department. For now, the second in a double whammy has been delivered to casino supporters.

The first haymaker was thrown by the worst recession in seven decades. Few visible efforts have been made by casino proponents in the past few years, no surprise considering the financial hole that all of America has been digging itself out of.

The second severe setback was this recent confusion and legal desperation within the BIA. According to a Thursday Columbian story by Stephanie Rice, some of the overlooked documents dispute tribal claims that the Cowlitz have historical ties to the land near La Center. That tribal argument was countered years ago, as revealed by these assertions we presented in a 2007 editorial: "Tribal headquarters are in Longview (Cowlitz County), a housing center is farther north in Toledo (Lewis County) and ample historical evidence" places the tribal homeland to the north of Clark County.

Another matter of dispute pertains to federal recognition. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the federal government can only put land into trust for tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934. But the Cowlitz tribe was federally recognized in 2000.

Thus, we see the Cowlitz casino proposal sinking deeper into a regulatory abyss from which it might never escape. And that's good for Clark County.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/sep/14/more-woes-for-casino/

Senate Hearing on Carcieri, Patchak

Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on Carcieri, Patchak
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold a hearing this Thursday to discuss two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that affect the land-into-trust process.

In Carcieri v. Salazar, the court ruled that tribes must have been "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934 in order to follow the land-into-trust process. The decision, which has already spurred new litigation, requires the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take extra steps to determine a tribe's eligibility.

In Salazar v. Patchak, the court opened the door to even more litigation. Just about anyone can sue over a land-into-trust decision and can do so even after land has been placed in trust.

The hearing takes place at 2:15pm in Room 628 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. A witness list hasn't been published.

Committee Notice:
Addressing the Costly Administrative Burdens and Negative Impacts of the Carcieri and Patchak Decisions (September 13, 2012)

http://64.38.12.138/News/2012/007030.asp

Oneida foreclosure

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

Published: Tuesday, August 21, 2012

 

By CAITLIN TRAYNOR
Dispatch Staff Writer
Twitter.com/DispatchCaitlin

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

Observer-Dispatch

 

Posted Sep 08, 2012

 

UTICA —

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
 

There's always a Gambling connection

Sheldon Adelson 'earned' his bundles sucking discretionary income from those least able to afford it tied to the Bad Old Days when Gambling was largely unregulated. When you own the state, own the politicians, you largely do as you choose.

Now, the laws don't seem to apply to Mitt Romney.

Sunday, August 12th, 2012 | Posted by Gordon Duff

Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid

Romney Faces Prosecution for Campaign Finance Violations

…by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens. 

There is a reason for this, one that Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media had ignored until just recently.

Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony. Hello Romney campaign…is anybody home, hello?

Below, Fox News identifies illegal fundraising in both Israel and in London, no donor is identified, no records are kept. Gosh, does that look like someone might be trying to circumvent the law?

__________________

YouTube - Veterans Today -

If you go outside the US, if you stay inside the US, if your contributor is living in the US but not a citizen, any money you get can mean years in jail.

Romney went the whole way, personally campaigning outside the US, soliciting foreign citizens, and humiliating himself and his country with his ignorance and flagrant attempts to trade illegal cash for promises of illegal war. One could hardly break more laws if one wanted.

Romney has raised millions in foreign cash at fundraising events across Israel and London, those that we know of so far. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.” Others may have just flown the money in.

A real question many might ask, why would a presidential candidate travel outside the US to seek campaign money at all? As the Supreme Court points out, in the decision Bluman, et al., v. Federal Elections Commission, no foreign cash, especially collected overseas, can ever be used in an American campaign.

__________________

Here is what the New York Times reports on recent court decisions that disqualify Romney as a candidate:

January 9, 2012, 3:34 pm

Supreme Court Retains Ban on Foreign Campaign Donations

By JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR.

In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.
Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.

The Supreme Court’s order did not discuss the merits or suggest that there was any dissent among the justices.

_________________

The iconic photo below, from the Washington Post, hands Romney out to dry:

A man with some real problems to wail about; “Please g-d, don’t let them catch me…”

Here is what the Washington Post reported on Romney’s illegal fundraising efforts inside Israel:

JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney held an intimate breakfast fundraiser here Monday with some of his campaign’s biggest benefactors, telling them about the spiritual impact his trip to Israel had had on him.

Seated around a U-shaped conference table with roughly 40 donors, with Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson immediately to his left, Romney said he was “overwhelmingly impressed with the hand of providence.”

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was expected to raise more than $1 million from the donors, who each were required to raise or donate $25,000 to $50,000 to attend the event. All of the donors are U.S. citizens, and many of them flew here from the United States to be with Romney during his 36-hour visit to Jerusalem.

Many of those in attendance at the posh King David Hotel are major bundlers for Romney’s campaign, raising tens of thousands of dollars from their business associates and friends. Adelson, for instance, has personally committed to giving tens of millions of dollars to a pro-Romney super PAC.

He sure has a big smile on his face

No filming, no photographs were allowed, no donor IDs were checked.

No due diligence done, only one reporter attended who surprise, surprise, had no access to donors.

This is one of many fundraisers including one in Tel Aviv just for diamond merchants as Fox reported, held in total secrecy.

We have word that Romney and Sheldon Adelson met a group of large donors from among the Jewish community of Russia who flew from Moscow to offer their financial support.

The problem stems with bad legal advice Romney received from his campaign finance staff.

The Romney campaign had been laundering money through corporations, money moved into the US under the “Citizen’s United” decision of the US Supreme Court.

Romney figured he could then go anywhere in the world, peddle foreign policy, promise war, play president and collect cash from foreigners though this is specifically prohibited by US law.

In doing so, he is no longer qualified for office and, if challenged by Ron Paul, has no standing at the Republican Convention. With such a clear violation of law, not just blatant but massive, Romney could face years in prison.

The Romney/Bain legal team was not available for comment.

It is now for Romney to prove that not one cent of contributions collected from thousands in Israel was actually collected from Israel. We wish him good luck with that.

One source of untapped information on Romney’s activities is his Secret Service detail. As federal law enforcement officers, though they are not directly tied to the Federal Election Commission, they are obligated to report any suspicious activity.

Considering Romney’s secret meetings with diamond merchants, many of whom are on international terror watch lists, perhaps the secret service might want to meet their sworn obligation.

_________________

Israel is now the largest source for “blood” or “conflict” diamonds, the major source of funds for terrorism, illegal arms dealing and drug trafficking in the world.

Here is how this works, taking advantage of “loopholes” purposefully written into handling procedures that let billions in illegal diamonds enter the US:

Since the KP, at least in its current form, only tracks the movements and origins of uncut diamonds, countries specializing in the cut variety of stones can churn out billions of dollars worth of diamonds each year, incubated from the sometimes awkward propriety questions the KP has been known to raise.

Due in part to this glaring KP loophole, Israel has become the world’s largest diamond exporter, with revenues from the precious stones accounting for more than a third of its total annual exports. In 2008, Israel generated $9.4 billion through diamond exports, an amount increasing annually.

Since the process of cutting diamonds removes all traceable hallmarks, cut diamonds purchased from Israel are close to impossible to track, indistinguishable from diamonds sent from South Africa, Australia or North America, and end up at major trading hubs such as New York or Hong Kong, where they are purchased wholesale by diamond sellers across the globe.

Is Fox right, is illegal diamond trafficking going to have its own president? Are these diamond “merchants” supporting Romney or “blood diamond launderers?”

Are we to wait on hands and knees for federal authorities to make a statement on this, or are they all at the casino?

When you add Sheldon Adelson, Romney’s “host” and his history of involvement in charges of bribery and prostitution and “casino skimming,” according to the Jewish Global News as quoted by Veterans Today.

Romney certainly has chosen an interesting crowd to help enrich his heritage as a Mormon Bishop.
The results of the Romney overseas trip?

We had fundraisers generally barring reporters and others with “no access, sit in the corner with no camera”.

To that you can add in unpublished meetings and a failure to identify not just sources of cash, which wasn’t just Israeli but money channeled from other foreign supporters from Russia, India, Britain, Switzerland and elsewhere.

Is there any doubt why Romney would leave the country to raise money when he has over a thousand Swiss bank accounts?

Editing: Jim W. Dean

Is it fair for the troops to be humiliated by a presidential candidate selling their lives and limbs for campaign donations?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/12/foreign-cash-disqualifies-romney-from-presidential-bid/

Online gambling would create a few winners, many losers

Online gambling would create a few winners, many losers

• Published August 12, 2012

 

There are troubling signs that Congress may cave to pressure from powerful online gambling interests and repeal the 2006 law that banned betting from your home computer.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/08/12/2210782/online-gambling-would-create-a.html#storylink=cpy

Poker-playing lobbyists have spent $7.6 million since 2007 on efforts to reverse the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Those interests contributed more than $174,000 to federal candidates in just the past election cycle.

Adding to the worry of those who oppose online betting, some U.S. Indian tribes are reversing their positions and supporting a federal law to legalize the activity. Once seen as a threat to Indian casinos, some tribes now see legalization under federal rules as inevitable and don’t want to miss the opportunity to participate.

The Washington Constitution prohibits all gambling activities, except those specifically allowed under state law. Internet gambling has never been authorized and the Legislature put an exclamation point on that in 2006 when it reaffirmed that Web betting was prohibited. The 2006 bill also increased the penalty from a gross misdemeanor to a class C felony.

Further, in Rousso v. State of Washington, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the state’s Internet gambling law does not violate the constitution on the dormant commerce clause.

It is clear that Washingtonians don’t want to legalize Internet gambling.

But legalization on a federal level could emasculate state law, if it permitted Washington residents to place bets on websites located in other states. Nevada and Delaware have legalized Internet gambling, and it is believed that New Jersey will join them by year’s end.

The stakes are high for everyone because online gambling has the potential to become a modern day gold rush. The only winners in gambling are the casinos, whether they are physically located or exist in cyber space, and they see a virtual cash bonanza.

It is surprising to no one that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is pushing to repeal the federal ban. Reid once headed up his home state’s gambling commission.

There are sufficient opportunities for responsible gamblers to place bets and enjoy the thrill of risking money on games of chance. The South Sound, for example, is flush with well-run casinos operated by the Chehalis, Nisqually and Squaxin tribes, who at least attempt to make the experience as much about entertainment, dining and other activities, such as golf and spa treatments.

Sitting alone in a room, placing bets online, may have a stronger appeal to addictive personalities, who can bring various unwanted forms of grief to themselves and their families. The simple act of forcing a gambling addict to drive to a casino to make their bets can be a deterrent to those who cannot control their gambling impulses.

Congress should not repeal the federal Internet gambling law, and continue to enforce the 1961 Wire Act making it illegal to wager over telecommunication systems that cross state lines for all types of betting.

Those who want to gamble online can travel to states, such as Nevada, where it is legal, as they do now to wager in casinos.

Washingtonians shouldn’t be forced into accepting Internet gaming by the federal government.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/08/12/2210782/online-gambling-would-create-a.html#storylink=cpy

 

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/08/12/2210782/online-gambling-would-create-a.html

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/08/12/2210782/online-gambling-would-create-a.html#storylink=cpy

The trouble with the Mashpee Wampanoag land claim

 

GUEST OPINION: The trouble with the Mashpee Wampanoag land claim

By Allin Frawley

Posted Jul 24, 2012

“Sometimes it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.” I don’t know who said it, but it sure feels like that is what the State House and governor are doing as far as a state-tribal compact is concerned.

 

Recently, an article appeared in the Boston Globe, (Mark Arsenault, July 16), regarding the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Cowlitz Tribe in the Pacific Northwest. If this is the thought process that is being referenced by the proponents of the tribe for the Mashpee land-into-trust issue, then I believe that the proponents must first admit that at this time there is no legal vehicle present for the Mashpee to acquire land-into-trust.

 

This article is referencing a strategy to circumvent the current law. An argument could be made that the state is going into this compact in the “hopes” that the Mashpee will be successful. What if the state and the tribe are wrong? Where does that leave us, residents of Southeastern Massachusetts?

Why hasn’t the governor’s legal team reviewed the Mashpee Wampanoag’s historical evidence? Are we now taking them at their word? Historically, that has not gone well for anyone who has been partners with the tribe. (Please just ask Middleboro). What kind of timeline is the tribe looking at?

 

In 2007, when the tribe signed their first intergovernmental agreement, we were 18 months. In 2009, after Carcieri v. Salazar, we were again told 18 months. Still nothing.

 

This Cowlitz case is in court now and will be for years to come. Then and only then will the Mashpee Wampanoag’s get their chance, and there are some very important differences:

 

1. The Mashpee are looking to take two different parcels into trust. A “dual initial reservation” has NEVER been granted.

 

2. Taunton is not ever mentioned in the Mashpee Wampanoag’s federal application for recognition. Ask any other tribe about the Mashpee’s ties to Taunton. This is a clear case of “reservation shopping,” looking for land for a casino then laying claims to it. The BIA has ruled against this ploy many times. This is not the Mashpee Tribe’s first try, or second or third. They went to Middleboro, Fall River, New Bedford and finally settled on Taunton. And this compact will allow them to try elsewhere as well.

 

3. The Mashpee were never under federal recognition, The commonwealth of Massachusetts predates the federal government. There is no federal land to give to the Mashpee; there never was. The Supreme Court decision in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs tells you that you cannot give state sovereign land to the federal government or an Indian tribe.

 

Those are just three examples of differences between the Mashpee and Cowlitz, there are plenty more and there are other troubling aspects to the proponent’s arguments. And yet the state has decided to take a chance on this tribe and ignore the Supreme Court's decisions regarding this matter.

 

I hope Southeastern Massachusetts is in a forgiving mood when this deal falls apart.

 

Allin Frawley is the vice chairman of the Middleboro Board of Selectmen. He has been involved in the Mashpee Wampanoags’ land-in-trust issues since the tribe initially approached the town of Middleboro with a casino proposal in 2007.

Read more: http://www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x2078605164/GUEST-OPINION-The-trouble-with-the-Mashpee-Wampanoag-land-claim#ixzz21aPvf1Jn

Massachusetts Ignorance: Blindly negotiating and voting!

Translation: Governor Slot Barns Patrick negotiated a Compact without access to the Mashpee Wampanoag LIT application!

That also means legislators who have voted in the House and those who will vote in the Senate have NOT reviewed it.

A spokesman for the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development said the state just received the land-in-trust application and is still reviewing it.


Projected annual casino revenue set at $511.8M
George Brennan
gbrennan@capecodonline.com
July 24, 2012

MASHPEE — As the Senate considers a tribal-state gaming compact today, an environmental report says that a Mashpee Wampanoag casino would generate $511.8 million per year in overall revenue.

The estimate is included in an Environmental Notification Form, prepared by Epsilon, a consultant conducting the environmental review of the Taunton project for the tribe.

That figure includes all revenue, not just casino money, a tribe source confirmed. It is also based on the five-year build-out of the $500 million casino, hotel and water park complex.

The project is also expected to generate an estimated $836.5 million in total economic benefit for the state during construction, according to the report, although, again, the revenues are not broken down.

Under the terms of the compact under consideration by the Senate, the state would receive 21.5 percent of the gross gambling revenue from the casino. How much of the $511.8 million per year would come from gambling is not specified in the report and has not been made public.

The House approved the compact last week.

[WITHOUT REVIEWING THE LIT APPLICATION!]

The tribe still faces federal hurdles in getting land in Taunton taken into federal trust for a casino, a requirement of federal Indian casino laws. It seeks 170 acres in Mashpee for specific government and housing uses and 146 acres in Taunton for a casino. The application is for an "initial reservation" for the tribe, which gained federal recognition in 2007.

In a copy of the land-into-trust application obtained Monday by the Times, several key aspects are missing including the tribe's business plan and an expert report on the tribe's historic links to Taunton. The application has a placeholder that states "to be submitted."

Also missing is how the tribe will clear its most significant hurdle — overcoming a 2009 Supreme Court ruling known as the "Carcieri decision" that called into question the ability to take land in trust for tribes recognized after 1934. The tribe's "Carcieri report," which will outline why the tribe believes the ruling does not apply, also is listed as "to be submitted."

The Indian casino law requires a gambling facility to be within 50 miles of a tribe's home base. A Google map provided in the application to show Mashpee's distance from Taunton charts it over Buzzards Bay at 35 miles. The drive to Taunton from tribal headquarters in Mashpee is 45 miles, according to an online search.

Though an expert report is not yet included in the application, the tribe does give some hint as to how it will make historic and modern ties to the city. "Taunton is located in modern-day Southeastern Massachusetts — an area indisputably within the tribe's aboriginal territory and to which the tribe has strong historical ties," the application states.

The application also points out that 1,584 of the tribe's 2,600 members live within 50 miles of Taunton. "Under current economic conditions, that distance is well within the range that many tribal members commute to secure employment," the application states.

A spokesman for the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development said the state just received the land-in-trust application and is still reviewing it.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120724/NEWS/207240316&cid=sitesearch

Legal ambiguities face Mashpee Wampanoags

Rep. Koczera pushes for hard casino deadline

BY: Paul McMorrow

July 16, 2012

 

When Massachusetts lawmakers legalized casino gambling last year, they put the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in a legally tenuous position: Lawmakers gave the tribe first crack at opening a casino in the state’s southeastern region, but on the condition that the tribe work through a federal approval process that had been shut down by the Supreme Court.

 

Now, with a legislative deadline looming, the legal ambiguities the Legislature created for the Mashpee are exploding into view. A key South Coast lawmaker is pushing to open the region to commercial casino operators if the Mashpee fail to meet a hard deadline for building a tribal casino , but Mashpee tribal officials are balking, saying they’d view such a performance deadline as an incursion on tribal sovereignty.

The state’s new gaming law anticipates the Mashpee operating a tribal casino somewhere in southeastern Massachusetts. The tribe has secured 152 acres in Taunton, and recently won a nonbinding gambling referendum in the city. However, the state law pushes the Mashpee into the federal tribal gaming bureaucracy that was upended by a 2009 Supreme Court ruling.

The 2009 decision held that the federal government could only convert private land to tribal land, a process known as taking land into trust, for tribes that were in the federal regulatory system prior to 1934. The ruling would seem to preempt a Mashpee casino in Taunton: Under state law, the casino would have to operate on tribal land, but according to the 2009 Supreme Court decision, the Department of the Interior has no legal authority to take tribal land for the Mashpee since they weren’t federally recognized until 2007.

Under the state’s gaming law, the new Massachusetts Gaming Commission may put the southeastern casino region out to bid if it determines that the Mashpee won’t be able to secure land in trust from Interior. There’s no firm timeline for the commission to make such a determination, and, on Monday, New Bedford Rep. Robert Koczera pushed hard for creating one.

At a legislative hearing on the Mashpee gaming compact Gov. Deval Patrick announced last week, Patrick’s chief of staff, Mo Cowan, said a deadline for putting the Mashpee land into trust “was very much part of” compact negotiations, but it “was not an issue we were successfully able to bring into the compact.” He said the governor “couldn’t compel the tribe to get a date certain if it was not so inclined.” 

Koczera said Monday he will push to amend the compact by putting the Mashpee under a two-year deadline to secure land in federal trust. Koczera had previously lobbied to immediately open the southeastern Massachusetts casino license to competitive bidding because he feared the consequences of legal wrangling over tribal gaming. He said on Monday that without a firm deadline for advancing the proposed Mashpee casino in Taunton the region could be left behind in the casino sweepstakes. “It’s my area where jobs are going to be in limbo, in purgatory,” he said.

Koczera’s push for a tribal gaming deadline creates a new flashpoint at a critical time for the Mashpee. The Legislature has to approve the gaming compact by July 31. Any changes to the document would have to be approved by both Patrick and the Mashpee. And on Monday, the tribe pushed back hard against the notion of a deadline. Howard Cooper, a lawyer for the Mashpee, flatly rejected “the idea of putting a deadline on sovereign rights.”

Concerns about the Mashpee’s ability to secure federal land in trust dominated the legislative hearing. The compact commits the governor’s office to lobby Interior on the Mashpee’s behalf – a point Cowan said could help the state overcome the Supreme Court ruling. “We’ve already been in contact with Interior,” he said. “They’re eager to review [the land application]. That’s a positive sign. We take it as a signal the issue is not foreclosed.” Cooper argued that doubts about the tribe’s ability to secure land in trust “are the types of issues that people who want to see projects fail raise.”

The administration and the Mashpee both hinted that their strategy for overcoming the 2009 Supreme Court ruling rests on proving that the Mashpee interacted with the federal government prior to 1934, since the court said Interior can only take land in trust for tribes that fell under federal jurisdiction before 1934. “Just because the tribe was not recognized before 1934 doesn’t mean they weren’t under federal jurisdiction,” argued Abim Thomas, Patrick’s deputy chief counsel. “The tribe will have to make that case.”

In that context, it’s notable that in 2009, when the Supreme Court was weighing the land-in-trust case, Attorney General Martha Coakley signed on to a multi-state amicus brief that argued the opposite – that federal jurisdiction equals federal recognition. The court sided with the states, creating the legal quagmire the Mashpee are now in the middle of.

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2012/Summer/002-Legal-ambiguities-face-Mashpee-Wampanoags.aspx#

Taunton casino’s fate tied to landless tribe’s legal battle

Taunton casino’s fate tied to landless tribe’s legal battle
By Mark Arsenault Globe Staff July 16, 2012

Wendy Maeda/globe staff Governor Deval Patrick finalized an agreement with the Mashpee Wampanoag last week about the terms under which a Taunton tribal casino would operate.
In 2010, the Cowlitz Indians, a landless tribe in the Pacific Northwest, celebrated a long-fought victory after finally persuading the federal government to take 152 acres in Washington state into trust as the tribe’s reservation.

The Cowlitz had grand plans for their land: a gambling resort with 3,000 slots and Las Vegas-style table games, a hotel and RV park, restaurants, and retail stores.

But two years later the project is on hold, frozen by federal lawsuits challenging the government’s right to take land into the trust for the tribe. Tribal gambling can take place only on sovereign Indian land, and until the lawsuits are resolved the tribe is technically still landless.

The travails of the Cowlitz are resonating across the country, all the way to Taunton, where another landless tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoag, was last week celebrating its own incremental victory in an effort to build a resort casino.

The fates of the tribes may be related: The Mashpee Wampanoag are following the Cowlitz blueprint for getting trust land.

And final decisions in the lawsuits over the Cowlitz project could determine if the Mashpee ever realize their casino dreams.

“Everyone seems to think we’re the test case,” said Phil Harju, vice chairman and tribal attorney for the Cowlitz.

No answers are expected soon.

Harju hopes the US District Court in Washington, D.C., will rule on the two pending cases by the end of this year or in early 2013. Appeals are a foregone conclusion, no matter which side wins the first round, probably adding at least one more year of delay before the courts have clarified the government’s authority to take land into trust for the Cowlitz — and perhaps the Mashpee.

In recent months, the Mashpee have made important progress toward winning federal approval for their casino plans. The tribe secured options to buy land in Taunton near the junction of routes 24 and 140, where it hopes to build a $500 million resort. Local voters gave their blessing in a nonbinding vote.

And last Wednesday, the tribe finalized an agreement with Governor Deval Patrick about the terms under which a Taunton tribal casino would operate. The Mashpee agreed to give the state 21.5 percent of gambling revenue should they manage to open a casino, in exchange for a prohibition on commercially run gambling resorts in Southeastern Massachusetts, and other considerations.

But the biggest obstacle between the Mashpee tribe and its multimillion-dollar plan is figuring out how to get its land into federal trust.

The Mashpee have been reluctant to detail their strategy, but a source close to the tribe confirms that the Mashpee will follow the same method employed by the Cowlitz. That arduous administrative process took the Cowlitz eight years, according to federal documents, and has so far resulted in no gambling revenue and two federal lawsuits.

Tribes for years have routinely made use of the Department of the Interior’s administrative land-in-trust procedures. Hundreds of tribal casinos have been built on Native American land since passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, a federal law that permits tribes to pursue gambling on their reservations as a means of self-support and economic development.

But things became much more difficult for tribes in 2009, when the US Supreme Court limited the power of the government to take land into trust. In a Rhode Island case involving former Governor Donald Carcieri and the Narragansett tribe, the high court ruled that the federal government may take land into trust only for tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” at the time Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934.

The ruling appeared to prevent recently recognized tribes, such as the Cowlitz, which earned federal recognition in 2002, and the Mashpee, recognized in 2007, from getting eligible land for gambling. Tribes have lobbied lawmakers to fix the problem; the gridlocked Congress is not expected to act anytime soon.

In the meantime, the court ruling left enough wiggle room for the Department of the Interior to take a generous interpretation of what it meant for a tribe to be “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934.

The Cowlitz got around the Carcieri decision by arguing they met the Supreme Court’s standard, due to the tribe’s historical engagement with the US government. The Cowlitz presented evidence of a lengthy relationship with US authorities, dating back to treaty negotiations in 1855, Harju said.

Evidence supplied by the tribe, summarized in the Department of the Interior’s final report granting trust land to the Cowlitz, includes documented attempts by the federal government to consolidate the Cowlitz with another tribe in the 1860s; the government’s identification of Cowlitz chiefs in the 1870s; and references in the 1920s to the federal government’s representing Cowlitz tribal interests in asserting fishing rights. A 1937 government report mentioned 500 “unattached Indians largely of
Cowlitz tribe” under the supervision of the Office of Indian Affairs.

“There is an overwhelming record that we were under federal jurisdiction,” Harju said.
The Department of the Interior agreed, approving the tribe’s land-in-trust application in December 2010.

Soon after, opponents of the tribal casino sued the federal government to overturn the decision to grant trust land to the tribe. The legal challenges are based in large part on the 2009 Supreme Court ruling in the Carcieri case.

The Mashpee Wampanoag hope to follow the trail blazed by the Cowlitz around the Carcieri decision, by proving the tribe had an ongoing relationship with the federal government into the 1930s, based on evidence gathered by Mashpee tribal historians. The tribe declines to release its evidence.

The Patrick administration, which has pledged to actively support the tribe’s land-in-trust application, has not reviewed the tribe’s evidence that it qualifies under the Supreme Court’s standard.

James P. Lynch, a Connecticut historical research consultant who has studied the Mashpee’s claims for a rival tribe, the Pocasset Wampanoag, said the Mashpee cannot qualify because they, historically, were under state jurisdiction.

Edward Gray Fox Page, chief of the Pocasset Wampanoags, says his tribe has no interest in building a casino on its land in Fall River and Freetown.

Daryl Black Eagle Jamieson, vice chairman of the Pocasset Tribal Council,… (George Rizer for the Boston Globe)

There is a chance the Cowlitz dispute could reach the Supreme Court. That would add to the delay, but another high court review would be valuable, Lynch said: “It would give the court a chance to say what it meant by ‘under federal jurisdiction.’ ”


http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/07/15/fate-mashpee-wampanoag-tribal-casino-tied-lawsuits-over-tribal-project-washington-state/3jDKM51UoamNy4xlKnXqnI/story.html