FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 131 of 133 < 1 2 ... 129 130 131 132 133 >
Topic Options
#1438419 --- 02/28/14 04:31 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Teonan]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Originally Posted By: kyle585
BS right back at you .. Give me one example of a right they are being denied. Are they rights or the present day atrocities you mentioned earlier? whistle
The fundamental atrocity is cultural genocide due to landbase removed from Peoples whose entire cosmology and worlview depends on their connection to the earth.

Try stepping outside the box and pay a visit with the any Haudenausaunee faith-keeper, clan mother, chief or traditional elder at Onondaga.

I'm sure they'd greet you most warmly. Great coffee too. wink
I have heard there are about 500 Indian tribes in the US? Is that accurate? Do we have to give them all land? How much for each tribe?

If we give them land and they turn around and use it for casinos and stores to sell tax free cigs and gas, that is about as far as you can get in connecting to the earth. Any tribe who does that is not interested in connecting to the earth but they are scam artists.

They would not even have coffee if not for the white man coming! Wow. Do they ever owe us a lot!
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1438699 --- 03/03/14 12:14 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: kyle585]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
If they got the land back, maybe they'd get connected enough to wipe out the buffalo, as they did much of the previously existing mega-fauna. Here are some images of the noble Indians connecting to buffalo. If they hadn't been of the Stone Age, if they'd smelted metals, and made steel-barreled rifles, and if they'd been advanced and civilized enough to have their numbers grow, there wouldn't have been many animals left on the continent. The Indians were brutally conquered, but the "noble red man" myth is just so much hooey. They are people, and as good as the whites, but the notion that they were any better is just romantic nonsense. Take a look at the 1st entry. I tried linking just it, but it ruins the page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=buffalom...alo+jump+images
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1438772 --- 03/03/14 09:56 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: VM Smith]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14335
Loc: CNY

Another straw man argument, Smitty?

No one's arguing that they were inherently more nobel or would be better or worse stewards of the land. Though, up to the point that white man arrived on the continent, they categorically were in far better balance with nature than the invading Europeans ever were.

The point is, It was their land to do with it, whatever what they chose.

Just as Europeans did.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438773 --- 03/03/14 10:06 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: kyle585]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14335
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: kyle585
I have heard there are about 500 Indian tribes in the US? Is that accurate? Do we have to give them all land? How much for each tribe?

If we give them land and they turn around and use it for casinos and stores to sell tax free cigs and gas, that is about as far as you can get in connecting to the earth. Any tribe who does that is not interested in connecting to the earth but they are scam artists.

They would not even have coffee if not for the white man coming! Wow. Do they ever owe us a lot!

And you wouldn't have the western hemisphere if weren't for them.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438819 --- 03/03/14 03:43 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Your Wiki posts, which are obviously created by pro tribal supporters, tell half truths as much as the apology you posted.

Tribal sovereignty is not inherent, was never granted by Congress and there is no USC or law granting such. They enjoy such immunity as wards of the federal government. Tribal sovereignty was created by SCOTUS to tribes, as political entities, and they are considering a case now where they may allow lawsuits against tribal commercial businesses.

The Indian Civil Rights Act was an attempt to grant individual tribal members those civil rights granted in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution does not apply to tribal trust lands or federal territories. But SCOTUS ruled violations were to be determined by the tribal governments, which are often the very violators of their member civil rights. Without a balance of powers in government, SCOTUS rendered the Indian Civil Rights Act useless.
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icra1968.htm

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 is covered rather well, but a nice addition to that would have been the Major Crimes Act passed in 1885.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Crimes_Act
The Major Crimes Act (U.S. Statutes at Large, 23:385)[1] is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1885. It places 7 major crimes under federal jurisdiction if they are committed by a Native American against another Native American in Native territory.

The act was passed in response to the Supreme Court of the United States's affirmation of tribal sovereignty in their ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556 (1883)), wherein they overturned the federal court conviction of Brule Lakota sub-chief Crow Dog, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of principal chief Spotted Tail on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in Dakota Territory.[3] The Court reasoned that the ability of the tribe to deal with such an offense was an attribute of tribal sovereignty that had not been specifically abrogated by an act of Congress.

The Major Crimes Act reduced the internal sovereignty of native tribes by removing their ability to try and to punish serious offenders in Indian country. The theory underlying it was that Indian tribes were not competent to deal with serious issues of crime and punishment.[4] The constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act was upheld in United States v. Kagama (118 U.S. 375 (1886)), a case in which two Indians were prosecuted for killing another Indian on a reservation. While the Court agreed that the prosecution of major crimes did not fall within Congress's power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, it ruled that the trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes conferred on Congress both the duty and the power to regulate tribal affairs.[3]

This left tribes with even less jurisdiction. The feds do a terrible job of enforcing laws where they do have jurisdiction and only these laws apply. If you are a tribal member and want continued benefits, you had better not oppose your government including voting for who they tell you to. On State reservations where the tribal government is the aggressor, members are even more so at the mercy of their government. Traditional Iroquois members opposed to gambling have had their homes burned.

As to prior to 1871 and your highlighted in red: The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection."

Your factoid lies are obvious.

Obviously omitted or not mentioned are the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and The Nationality Act of 1940 8 USC 1401 subchapter 3 part 1 granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. as of this date and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Plus, let us not omit the July 9, 1868 14 th Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I guess selective reading of the 14th to note the apportionment excluding Indians not taxes overlooked that they are citizens of the States.

Article 1 Section 8 does start out well but it may be a contention if this is more applicable to federal reservations. However, even the NYS treaties grant the rights to hunt and fish. Being that you probably do not live here, you would not know that.

Another half truth: "When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty. As determined in the Supreme Court case United States v. Nice (1916), U.S. citizens are subject to all U.S. laws even if they also have tribal citizenship."

Wow, talk about an OPINION based on a case U.S. v. Nice that dealt with selling liquor to a tribal member on federal trust land.

The ONLY statement that comes close to an alleged sovereignty mention is "In addition to the fact that both acts-the general one of 1887 and the special one of 1889-disclose that the tribal relation and the wardship of the Indians were not to be disturbed by the allotments and trust patents, we find that both Congress and the administrative officers of the government have proceeded upon that theory."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=241&invol=591

See how the FACTS are exposed when given the actual reference and not your cut and paste OPINION or the opinions posted on Wiki?

Yes, when the United States government formed, it replaced the British government as the other sovereignty coexisting in America with the American Indians. At that time the tribes were treated as sovereign because many still had the capability of waging war, which is why tribal affairs were part of the War Department prior to becoming the BIA.

As covered in this post, treaties are no longer made with tribes.

Article I deals with the legislative powers of Congress.
Section 2 describes the powers granted to the House of Representatives.
Section 2, clause 3 describes the apportionment of representatives which was amended in the 14th Amendment ratified July 9, 1868.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Excluding Indians not taxed was part of the amendment to exclude Indians who were not citizens and those who lived on reservations from being considered in the head count for determining Congressional districts. It was not a grant to exclude Indians from taxation, but a recognition of those that had that status. Your highlight in red giving the OPINION that suggests "that Indians need not be taxed." Or that the power granted to Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations…states…and with the Indian tribes. Technically, Congress has no more power over Indian nations than it does over individual states and general congressional laws are not applicable to them."

That hogwash OPINION that congressional laws are not applicable to them was obviously posted by a racist. The arguments based on just such laws are contrary to the poster's arguments the cut and paste post you made.

Another Wiki OPINION noting Article 1 Section 8 "The federal U.S. government has always been the government thatand makes treaties with Indian tribes - not individual states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

Well that is obviously not the case as states had such authority to make treaties prior to joining the Union. As the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua recognized all prior State Treaties as valid. Unfortunately the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties never argued those treaties except in the City of Sherrill case. SCOTUS asked the attorneys representing Sherrill why they had never heard of the Treaty of Ft. Schuyler before. The obvious answer would have been because the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties would have had their money mill diminished.

As to How many disadvantaged indigenous minorities do you suspect were housed, fed, clothed, treated, educated and trained with that money? As to the $1.8 billion in NYS tax credits: Aside from what the purpose was, that is money not collected, not funds available for those who pay no taxes.

NYS politics is corrupt and tax breaks for brownfield and empire zones have always been scams. As pointed out in the opinion article you linked only 1% of the corporations will benefit and that is likely do to their buying the politicians here (there - hah).

As to the discussion on indigenous people and the UN: that is really all Hollywood hoopla and US laws do not really apply except as a minority status. Even Halbritter's tribal news makes this clear. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...-experts-152114
Laws Needed to Enforce U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Legal Experts
Carol Berry 11/7/13

Consent is not always legally binding, Washburn continued, and FPIC "needs to be incorporated into U.S. laws," a position echoed by other speakers at the daylong conference, held on the first day of Native American Heritage Month, November 1.

Speakers include tribal government supporters, which of course are not members of the UN. If Congress were to pass a law excepting a race, it would be declared unconstitutional because equality under the law is only granted subterfuge by applying political status to tribes.

Top
#1438827 --- 03/03/14 05:05 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
tubby Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 1341
Loc: N.Y.
Timbo's Wikipedia and Google searches on this subject are a joke.

Top
#1438830 --- 03/03/14 05:15 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: tubby]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
Originally Posted By: tubby
Timbo's Wikipedia and Google searches on this subject are a joke.


He apparently thinks that the Indians created the Western Hemisphere, because without them, nobody else would have it. Or maybe he thinks that the Indians gave it to the whites as a gift. I think that there must be no atmosphere on Planet Timbo, and no intelligent life.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1438884 --- 03/04/14 07:34 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Timbo]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Though, up to the point that white man arrived on the continent, they categorically were in far better balance with nature than the invading Europeans ever were.


is that why they did not get along with each other?
600+ 'tribes'...
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1438886 --- 03/04/14 07:37 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Timbo]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Timbo
And you wouldn't have the western hemisphere if weren't for them.


so tell us what continent you would be living on?
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1438888 --- 03/04/14 07:47 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14335
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Your Wiki posts, which are obviously created by pro tribal supporters, tell half truths as much as the apology you posted.

Tribal sovereignty is not inherent, was never granted by Congress and there is no USC or law granting such. They enjoy such immunity as wards of the federal government. Tribal sovereignty was created by SCOTUS to tribes, as political entities, and they are considering a case now where they may allow lawsuits against tribal commercial businesses.

The Indian Civil Rights Act was an attempt to grant individual tribal members those civil rights granted in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution does not apply to tribal trust lands or federal territories. But SCOTUS ruled violations were to be determined by the tribal governments, which are often the very violators of their member civil rights. Without a balance of powers in government, SCOTUS rendered the Indian Civil Rights Act useless.
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icra1968.htm

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 is covered rather well, but a nice addition to that would have been the Major Crimes Act passed in 1885.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Crimes_Act
The Major Crimes Act (U.S. Statutes at Large, 23:385)[1] is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1885. It places 7 major crimes under federal jurisdiction if they are committed by a Native American against another Native American in Native territory.

The act was passed in response to the Supreme Court of the United States's affirmation of tribal sovereignty in their ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556 (1883)), wherein they overturned the federal court conviction of Brule Lakota sub-chief Crow Dog, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of principal chief Spotted Tail on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in Dakota Territory.[3] The Court reasoned that the ability of the tribe to deal with such an offense was an attribute of tribal sovereignty that had not been specifically abrogated by an act of Congress.

The Major Crimes Act reduced the internal sovereignty of native tribes by removing their ability to try and to punish serious offenders in Indian country. The theory underlying it was that Indian tribes were not competent to deal with serious issues of crime and punishment.[4] The constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act was upheld in United States v. Kagama (118 U.S. 375 (1886)), a case in which two Indians were prosecuted for killing another Indian on a reservation. While the Court agreed that the prosecution of major crimes did not fall within Congress's power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, it ruled that the trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes conferred on Congress both the duty and the power to regulate tribal affairs.[3]

This left tribes with even less jurisdiction. The feds do a terrible job of enforcing laws where they do have jurisdiction and only these laws apply. If you are a tribal member and want continued benefits, you had better not oppose your government including voting for who they tell you to. On State reservations where the tribal government is the aggressor, members are even more so at the mercy of their government. Traditional Iroquois members opposed to gambling have had their homes burned.

As to prior to 1871 and your highlighted in red: The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection."

Your factoid lies are obvious.

Obviously omitted or not mentioned are the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and The Nationality Act of 1940 8 USC 1401 subchapter 3 part 1 granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. as of this date and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Plus, let us not omit the July 9, 1868 14 th Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I guess selective reading of the 14th to note the apportionment excluding Indians not taxes overlooked that they are citizens of the States.

Article 1 Section 8 does start out well but it may be a contention if this is more applicable to federal reservations. However, even the NYS treaties grant the rights to hunt and fish. Being that you probably do not live here, you would not know that.

Another half truth: "When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty. As determined in the Supreme Court case United States v. Nice (1916), U.S. citizens are subject to all U.S. laws even if they also have tribal citizenship."

Wow, talk about an OPINION based on a case U.S. v. Nice that dealt with selling liquor to a tribal member on federal trust land.

The ONLY statement that comes close to an alleged sovereignty mention is "In addition to the fact that both acts-the general one of 1887 and the special one of 1889-disclose that the tribal relation and the wardship of the Indians were not to be disturbed by the allotments and trust patents, we find that both Congress and the administrative officers of the government have proceeded upon that theory."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=241&invol=591

See how the FACTS are exposed when given the actual reference and not your cut and paste OPINION or the opinions posted on Wiki?

Yes, when the United States government formed, it replaced the British government as the other sovereignty coexisting in America with the American Indians. At that time the tribes were treated as sovereign because many still had the capability of waging war, which is why tribal affairs were part of the War Department prior to becoming the BIA.

As covered in this post, treaties are no longer made with tribes.

Article I deals with the legislative powers of Congress.
Section 2 describes the powers granted to the House of Representatives.
Section 2, clause 3 describes the apportionment of representatives which was amended in the 14th Amendment ratified July 9, 1868.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Excluding Indians not taxed was part of the amendment to exclude Indians who were not citizens and those who lived on reservations from being considered in the head count for determining Congressional districts. It was not a grant to exclude Indians from taxation, but a recognition of those that had that status. Your highlight in red giving the OPINION that suggests "that Indians need not be taxed." Or that the power granted to Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations…states…and with the Indian tribes. Technically, Congress has no more power over Indian nations than it does over individual states and general congressional laws are not applicable to them."

That hogwash OPINION that congressional laws are not applicable to them was obviously posted by a racist. The arguments based on just such laws are contrary to the poster's arguments the cut and paste post you made.

Another Wiki OPINION noting Article 1 Section 8 "The federal U.S. government has always been the government thatand makes treaties with Indian tribes - not individual states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

Well that is obviously not the case as states had such authority to make treaties prior to joining the Union. As the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua recognized all prior State Treaties as valid. Unfortunately the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties never argued those treaties except in the City of Sherrill case. SCOTUS asked the attorneys representing Sherrill why they had never heard of the Treaty of Ft. Schuyler before. The obvious answer would have been because the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties would have had their money mill diminished.

As to How many disadvantaged indigenous minorities do you suspect were housed, fed, clothed, treated, educated and trained with that money? As to the $1.8 billion in NYS tax credits: Aside from what the purpose was, that is money not collected, not funds available for those who pay no taxes.

NYS politics is corrupt and tax breaks for brownfield and empire zones have always been scams. As pointed out in the opinion article you linked only 1% of the corporations will benefit and that is likely do to their buying the politicians here (there - hah).

As to the discussion on indigenous people and the UN: that is really all Hollywood hoopla and US laws do not really apply except as a minority status. Even Halbritter's tribal news makes this clear. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...-experts-152114
Laws Needed to Enforce U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Legal Experts
Carol Berry 11/7/13

Consent is not always legally binding, Washburn continued, and FPIC "needs to be incorporated into U.S. laws," a position echoed by other speakers at the daylong conference, held on the first day of Native American Heritage Month, November 1.

Speakers include tribal government supporters, which of course are not members of the UN. If Congress were to pass a law excepting a race, it would be declared unconstitutional because equality under the law is only granted subterfuge by applying political status to tribes.

For one who is so clearly suggesting that the information I previously posted amounts to little more than pure opinion (or lies), you certainly seem to relish the opportunity to inject your own ample supply of both into the debate whenever possible. crazy

* "are obviously created by pro tribal supporters"
* "tell half truths as much as the apology you posted."
* "The theory underlying it was that Indian tribes were not competent to deal with serious issues of crime and punishment."
* "The feds do a terrible job of enforcing laws where they do have jurisdiction..."
* "If you are a tribal member and want continued benefits, you had better not oppose your government including voting for who they tell you to."
* "On State reservations where the tribal government is the aggressor, members are even more so at the mercy of their government."
* "Your factoid lies are obvious."
* "Obviously omitted"
* "That hogwash OPINION that congressional laws are not applicable to them was obviously posted by a racist"
* "As the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua recognized all prior State Treaties as valid. Unfortunately the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties never argued those treaties except in the City of Sherrill case. SCOTUS asked the attorneys representing Sherrill why they had never heard of the Treaty of Ft. Schuyler before. The obvious answer would have been because the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties would have had their money mill diminished."
* "...tax breaks for brownfield and empire zones have always been scams."
* "... only 1% of the corporations will benefit and that is likely do to their buying the politicians here (there - hah)."

Add to that the half dozen or so augments that you're falsely suggesting that I have ever made, several blatant misrepresentations and a large handful of extremely dubious legal interpretations, you'll just have to forgive me for not putting much stock in your "facts".

You do make a 'couple' potentially enlightening points which I'll look into, as to confirm their veracity as well as your interpretations. If they seem to have any validity, I'll be sure to acknowledge it. But just so we aren't confused on the matter. From what I've seen, you clearly have no claim to "superiority of facts" on this or just about any other topic, for that matter (as your rampant hypocrisy clearly demonstrates).
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438894 --- 03/04/14 08:34 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: tubby]
tubby Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 1341
Loc: N.Y.
Originally Posted By: tubby

Top
#1438938 --- 03/04/14 09:04 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: bluezone]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Though, up to the point that white man arrived on the continent, they categorically were in far better balance with nature than the invading Europeans ever were.


is that why they did not get along with each other?
600+ 'tribes'...


They weren't in any better balance...that's Timbo inventing his own facts again.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1438940 --- 03/04/14 09:58 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: tubby]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
That def about says it. I'm glad he's quit telling us about his adventures in paying for sex in Sewer Bay. I figured he'd next be bragging about how the hookers are still sending him Christmas cards and flowers, every 4th child is named Timbo, and the ladies, left with only the inept ministrations of mere mortal men, of comparatively laughable dimension, have started a cargo cult, built a model of his ship out of packing crates, beer cans, and oil drums, and are nightly singing, weeping, praying, and sacrificing chickens and goats, pending his hotly awaited return.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1438951 --- 03/05/14 01:39 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/lifestyle/...oneida-counties
Federal judge approves Oneida Indian Nation agreement with NY, Madison and Oneida counties.

Top
#1439007 --- 03/05/14 08:58 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Boudicca Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/10
Posts: 61
Loc: Thames LockCS4
I have a question ~do the Cayuga Indians need the land that they want to build the casino on be put into trust to be exempt from state laws and regulations? Was that Mr. H's loophole...saying that he wasn't going to block the Cayuga Tribe knowing that they had troubles getting any land into trust?

Top
#1439008 --- 03/05/14 08:59 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: VM Smith]
Boudicca Offline
Member

Registered: 11/06/10
Posts: 61
Loc: Thames LockCS4
You are naughty;)

Top
#1439037 --- 03/05/14 02:16 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Boudicca]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Boudicca
I have a question ~do the Cayuga Indians need the land that they want to build the casino on be put into trust to be exempt from state laws and regulations? Was that Mr. H's loophole...saying that he wasn't going to block the Cayuga Tribe knowing that they had troubles getting any land into trust?


the fact that both halbritter and halftown need to place land into trust proves that it was not 'tribal' land and that all NYS laws and taxes applied on the land.

halftown was joining the lawsuit against halbritter to stop the 'deal'

_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1439047 --- 03/05/14 04:16 PM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Boudicca]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: Boudicca
I have a question ~do the Cayuga Indians need the land that they want to build the casino on be put into trust to be exempt from state laws and regulations? Was that Mr. H's loophole...saying that he wasn't going to block the Cayuga Tribe knowing that they had troubles getting any land into trust?
That's a yes and yes and clarification.

For a tribal class 3 casino to be legal they could comply with all laws, pay all taxes and operate one like any non-tribal casino if they got a license from the State. That would not have to be on tribal or trust land.

The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act established criteria for gambling on tribal land such as the land has to be placed into trust. The purpose for that being it would then be federal land under federal jurisdiction so that the laws could be enforced.

There are many federal bureaucracies involved which do not communicate with each other such as the NIGC, BIA, DOI, DOJ. Tribes apply to the National Indian Gaming Commission for permission to open a casino and the NIGC has granted such permission throughout the country and may or may not stipulate in their letter that such must be on lands which qualify. The replies I and Scott Peterman got regarding the Cayuga and Oneida casinos from Philip Hogan stated it was assumed it would only be on lands which qualified. Tribes need permission for any gambling on tribal land but do not need a compact for Class 1 or class 2.

Over 400 tribal casinos have been opened on lands that do not qualify. The Turning Stone was one.

If they open on federal land the feds can and have shut them down. If they are NOT on federal land it up to the State to enforce their own laws.

A state can ONLY get a percentage of tribal casino revenue on tribal land if the state grants the tribal casino an exclusive zone monopoly area with no competition.

A tribe can only open a class three casino on tribal land if it has a compact with the state. That allows the State to stipulate their own regulations and laws. So whatever state laws are included in the compact are valid on the casino grounds, but do not apply to any surrounding trust land. The DOI has to approve the compact to protect tribal interests but never check to see that such is on land which qualifies.

Gov. Mario Cuomo made a compact with Ray Hallbritter and never requested ANY funds for the State. Friends near the Mohawk rez told me Mario and Ray met there and Mario got paid cash in person. Ray was active with the Warrior Society (the tribal mob).

Of course the NIGC/BIA approved the compact.

UCE sued claiming the compact was invalid and it was ruled unconstitutional by the state's highest court because Mario never had the compact ratified by the state legislature. The Saratoga Horse Racing Assn. obtained the same results regarding the Mohawk casino but the legislature followed up by approving that compact. Not so with the Turning Stone.

Arguments in reply to our appeal to SCOTUS were that the compact was approved and (because it took so long for the courts to have it ruled unconstitutional) the statute of limitations had expired to appeal to the feds. It was a catch 22 because before it was ruled unconstitutional (by the State constitution) we had no foundation to appeal to the feds with.

The feds will not act because it is not on federal land. The State will not act by anybody's guess - for multiple reasons corrupt politicians, and about 1500 people who work at the casino would become unemployed.

Hallbritter knows that over time there may be a Gov. get elected that he can't buy and the State could shut it down any time it wanted to because it is on state sovereign land under state jurisdiction.

So having it placed into federal trust is the only safety net he has. The settlement is another story in itself. But the Cayuga were a valid fly in the ointment and Judge Kahn figured out a legal way to have Halbritter's offer included in the ruling.

BTW also noted in the ruling is that neither the settlement or his ruling stop the lawsuits by UCE, the CNFBA, or the municipalities from proceeding. We did not join the State in its lawsuit because we did not trust them. Imagine that.

Kahn also points out in his ruling that federal law requiring good faith negotiations have been ruled invalid and tribal options to have the DOI override that have also been ruled invalid.

So Hallbritter knows this is his only out and the lawsuits continuing may still invalidate everything.

For tribal land to legally qualify for a class 3 casino it is supposed to be placed into trust. It also has to be purchased prior to Implementation of the IGRA, which I think is Nov. 17, 1988. An exception can apply if it is designated by the BIA as their original reservation.

So the Prince Andrew who filed an amicus in our sales tax case when he was AG and declared that the Cayuga had no reservation and has not supported Nozzolio's legislation to clarify that is not to be trusted.

Also the NIGA allowed for the NIGC to write regulations concerning such but did not include authority to enforce their own regulations. I do not wish to make this any more confusing than it is but an answer of yes would not answer your question.

Top
#1439088 --- 03/06/14 01:01 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
It's like watching the Indians run a shells/pea game, but I think I still know where the pea is; you pretty clearly explain a game designed to confuse. smile
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1439109 --- 03/06/14 09:45 AM Re: More Tribal News [Re: VM Smith]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14335
Loc: CNY
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
Page 131 of 133 < 1 2 ... 129 130 131 132 133 >