FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#143411 --- 03/13/05 09:12 AM Indian Sovereign Immunity
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
A general overall picture and solution as suggested by the U.S. Supreme Court

Jim Marino is one of the attorneys that I work with.

Sunday Forum March 13, 2005
Indian Sovereign Immunity:
An American Anachronism after the Enactment of IGRA.
Attorney James Marino
California

More than two centuries ago through a complex series of treaties, Acts of Congress and federal and state court decisions, the concept of "Indian Sovereignty" emerged. This concept was more or less an attempt to placate conflicts between tribes and sub-tribes or bands of native peoples populating areas in America where the settlers, migrating here, sought social, political and economic freedom in the new world. Territorial and cultural disputes developed. The idea was to avoid belligerent conflicts so these tribes and tribal governments could be referred to as a "sovereign", which was a largely anglo-American political concept. Politically a sovereign is the ruling government of a "nation" which, not only exercises political control over a defined territory but also governs a defined body of "subjects" who often share some common historical and national culture and heritage. Typically the sovereign provides all services and infrastructure needed by its subjects, including a basic economy which in turn enables the nation to exist independently.

Early on Congress was determined to have plenary power and authority over Indian affairs largely because of the treaty powers and commerce acts established under the United States Constitution. Indian affairs were delegated to the Department of the Interior and it's Secretary which then established its own bureaucracy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian policy over the decades vacillated between removal, relocation and treaty allotments. Later in an attempt to encourage assimilation Congress enacted the Indian Allotment Act intended to allow tribal members to be allotted the tribal land as their own which was thought to be a method of encouraging assimilation of all Native Americans into the United States of America as American citizens. The concept of an Indian tribe being a governmental entity did not die, however, because some tribes, particularly the few larger tribes desired to perpetuate a separate and distinctive culture apart from contemporary America. The difficulty this presented was that these "independent and separate Indian "nations" i.e. tribes and bands, had no independent economic systems and means to exist in the economic and political mainstream of a developing nation.

This self imposed separation from mainstream America made these Indian Nations dependant upon the United States of America for their subsistence. Thus Indian policy created a large dependant category of Native Americans who resisted assimilation for social and cultural reasons. Although many individual Indians intermarried and assimilated into nearby communities, the policy of preserving tribal dependency persisted, in varying degrees, to this day. Some argue that it has persisted because the BIA and its massive bureaucracy is a self perpetuating agency. Over the decades Congress has attempted to provide by enacting various laws that provided for the necessities of life, such as food, housing, healthcare, and education. It had little success enacting laws which removed Indians from the dependant and welfare status that despite these laws continued to persist. The poorly thought out Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act of 1988 was yet another attempt to give Indian tribes a measure of economic viability. For the past three decades however, the politically correct segment of American society has resurrected the notion that separatism, or preservation of historical tribal culture is a good thing. This has been done under the rubric of "cultural diversity" and cuts across all nationalities including Native American Indians. This influence has brought us to the point where the drive to encourage "diversity" has blended with the ancient concept of "Indian Tribes" as sovereigns. That point is wholly irreconcilable with all the fundamental principals on which the United States of America is based.

The advent of the United States did not just "happen" it evolved. That evolution was at times painful and explosive, like the civil war, and has resulted in political and legal developments which took decades, even centuries to perfect. They represent a continually evolving process at work.

There are currently over 600 recognized "Indian Tribes" in this country. "Recognition" is a creature of the bureaucratic processes of the BIA. We have Indian "tribes" or "bands" with 1 member, 2, 3, 5, 8, 15 members etc. who are recognized and claim "sovereign status". Given the political definition of what sovereignty means, this designation is, at best, an absurd fiction. In the past this absurdity has been a matter of little consequence. It only meant that most of those claiming that status could continue to receive federal welfare, grant monies, loan guarantees and other federal benefit programs.

The fact that many laws did not apply to these “recognized” tribal governments and their members largely affected only tribal members. Preserving particular native cultures or tradition was important to many Indian tribal members, but is a matter of pedantic interest for non-Indians, particularly the "diversity is politically correct" crowd.

However, the advent of the Indian Gaming regulatory Act (IGRA.) changed all of that for several reasons. First and foremost was the somewhat obscure legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity". In the historic development of common law the "sovereign" (maker of the rules) was thought to be immune from any suit by the subjects it ruled. In our western civilization in particular this concept was so staunchly embedded that it provided that one "sovereign" could not sue another without consent and would only recognize the courts of another sovereign on principals of comity. i.e. I'll recognize your court decisions if you recognize mine.

As soon as Congress enacted the IGRA many of these recognized "tribes" began to engage in class III casino gambling which prior to IGRA had been very limited primarily to Nevada, Atlantic City, and vessel’s plying international or inland waterways. The rapid expansion of Indian gambling and their related businesses in conjunction with outside non-Indian "investors", has exposed the glaring anachronism of the legal doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.

The historic development of laws protecting workers, patrons of businesses, those who enter into contracts and surrounding communities that impose zoning and development laws and environmental protection laws for the benefit of everyone, are well known and resulted from hardships and human suffering over decades. Now that so called "Indian Tribes" are the owners and operators of these businesses, the natural question to ask is, "Why should these tribes be immune from all the laws which protect the public".

Similarly the question naturally arises, why should tribes not have to provide the same protections to workers and to nearby non-Indian communities that any other for-profit business must follow including the requirement that they pay taxes for all of the public services provided by non-Indian taxpayers like, police, fire, schools, roads, sewer and water systems, hospitals, libraries and other extensive infra-structure that these same tribes and tribal members use extensively?

Finally the question must be asked as to why these Indian casinos, tribes and other profitable tribal businesses are still receiving massive amounts of federal welfare, grant gifts and loan guarantees. Why are tribal members of these ‘sovereign nations’ voting in all local, state and Federal elections but no non-Indian has any right to vote or any voice in any tribal government matters? All of these absurd inequalities result from the court created doctrine of "tribal sovereign immunity".

The United States Supreme Court finally acknowledged that this doctrine of sovereignty is an anachronism that evolved from the period that Indian tribes were dependent, nascent entities whose land was oftentimes owned in trust by the government and the tribes had few assets. It was a doctrine in-tended to protect these tribes from outside interference in their internal affairs, in other words a defensive legal mechanism. The majority of the court concluded that the Congress must have known about the many court decisions which both created and expanded the doctrine over the years when they enacted the many Indian benefit laws year after year so it was up to Congress to correct the problems created by rule of law. The minority vigorously dissented with justice Stevens stating in perhaps the understatement of the century, "Why should an Indian tribe have more immunity than the United States, All the states and every foreign nation ?”

The entire court suggested a relatively simple solution to Congress. That was to amend the Foreign Commerce Act to include Indian tribes or bands. That Act provides that when a foreign nation seeks to do business in this country they must obey all state, local and federal laws and become susceptible to lawsuits in all State and federal courts just like everyone else. Thus such a law is not an affront to classic notions of sovereignty because it only applies when the sovereign seeks to do business. As it would apply to any Indian tribe or band, they retain all classic "sovereignty" until they engage in any business enterprise. When they do that, then all of the laws protecting workers, patrons and communities who suffer adverse impacts of that business and any one injured or damaged can sue the tribe in all state and local courts. Similarly these Indian business enterprises would have to comply with all tax laws, campaign financing laws, elections laws and all other laws for the health, safety and welfare of the general public and would have to meet all regulatory and licensing laws.

That case, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma versus Manufacturing Technologies Inc. was decided in 1998. Congress has done nothing to correct the problem evidently because of a combination of a politically correct reluctance to do anything that affects Indians and be accused of being racist or insensitive to historic injustices perpetrated on the remote ancestors of current, (often fractional part Indians) and for which no one living today, had anything to do with, and money.

These now wealthy tribes are working hard to stifle any reform of what amounts to an absurd legal largess by donating massive amounts of money to willing politicians who have no concern for the routine injustices being foisted on present day Americans of all races by the undeserved legal immunity of highly profitable Indian casinos and businesses which have significant and numerous negative community impacts on non-Indians without any legal recourse. Lastly this absurd immunity has impacted individual tribal members because these tribal members have little or no say so in the control of their own tribal governments, often dominated by the largest family, or the control by their own government over massive amounts of money. It is a subject for another essay, but the control of who is or isn't a member of a recognized tribe is left up to the tribe itself. Therefore if the controlling government decides to dis-enroll a tribal member who represents a cut of their profit from their business success, or their eligibility for federal welfare and grant money, it is in the hands of the controlling tribal government with no right to sue or to redress in any court except the very tribal government that ousted them. This is the primary reason why many tribal members of good conscience cannot do anything to correct the corruption they see from the inside or to even speak out against it.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#143412 --- 03/13/05 11:20 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Dick, that essay tells it like it is. My thanks to you for posting it. This should be published to a much wider audience and discussed openly.

Top
#143413 --- 03/13/05 11:55 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
No one gave us Sovereign Immunity its something we always had that we didn't give up. No one gave us the right to game we have always had that right to game if we wanted to. The Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act of 1988 was yet another attempt to control and take part of what we were making from gaming. Look to the case of the Seminole in Fl. and thats what brought about the IGRA act. Congress would like you to think they gave us this right but the fact is how can someone give you what you already have. Treaties, laws, and acts of congress have been done not to give to the Indians but to take away from Indians. Good try Dick at lest you have grinch eating up your bs. LOL
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143414 --- 03/13/05 01:05 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
Quote:

No one gave us Sovereign Immunity its something we always had that we didn't give up. No one gave us the right to game we have always had that right to game if we wanted to. The Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act of 1988 was yet another attempt to control and take part of what we were making from gaming. Look to the case of the Seminole in Fl. and thats what brought about the IGRA act. Congress would like you to think they gave us this right but the fact is how can someone give you what you already have. Treaties, laws, and acts of congress have been done not to give to the Indians but to take away from Indians. Good try Dick at lest you have grinch eating up your bs. LOL




As usual you are incorrect the Seminole case (decided in 1996) did not bring about the IGRA, it interpreted a provision of it relating to the sovereign immunity of States in relation to suits brought by Indian Nations and Tribes under the IGRA.

If you accept the premise that you are trying to set forth (i.e. they are possessed of the same level of sovereignty as an independent sovereign such as Canada) then they should be treated as foreign sovereigns are. But they do not want that because then their sovereign immunity would not protect their commercial interests from suit or taxes. It was summed up well by Justice Stevens in his concurring opinion in Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe Oklahoma 498 U.S. 505, 111 S. Ct. 905, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1112, as follows: “The doctrine of sovereign immunity is founded upon an anachronistic fiction. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 414-416 (1979). In my opinion all Governments -- federal, state, and tribal -- should generally be accountable for their illegal conduct. The rule that an Indian tribe is immune from an action for damages absent its consent is, however, an established part of our law. See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512-513 (1940). Nevertheless, I am not sure that the rule of tribal sovereign immunity extends to cases arising from a tribe's conduct of commercial activity outside its own territory, cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1605(a) ("A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case . . . (2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state . . ."), or that it applies to claims for prospective equitable relief against a tribe, cf. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664-665 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against States for retroactive monetary relief, but not for prospective injunctive relief).”

Top
#143415 --- 03/14/05 05:19 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
UKNFOAD Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/25/03
Posts: 1718
you know, im a live and let live person. If the tribes want their own, let them have it. no more welfare or grants. you shouldnt be able to say you dont want our government and then be at offices applying for aid through our government. you shun it, then hold out your hand. We all welcome you, you have right to be unique. The world has evolved and if this land didnt become america, it would be england or maybe even ussr. If that was the case you would really have no say at all.
IMO anyone who uses our resources and tax money should also pay them.

of course this is my opinion- im not full blooded indian but i do have some in my family and in myself- and that is the way i see it.

Top
#143416 --- 03/14/05 10:48 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
way2savory We pay more to the feds then we get back. We pay to the state and get nothing back. So who needs to pull their hands back and stop taken from who.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143417 --- 03/14/05 04:29 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Strawberry Jam Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 34421
Loc: Herkimer County NY
Quote:

way2savory We pay more to the feds then we get back. We pay to the state and get nothing back. So who needs to pull their hands back and stop taken from who.




Simple little thing I want to say here Okla....PROVE IT!

Top
#143418 --- 03/14/05 10:59 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Quote:

way2savory We pay more to the feds then we get back. We pay to the state and get nothing back. So who needs to pull their hands back and stop taken from who.




Simple little thing I want to say here Okla....PROVE IT!


I already did before you became a member of this board. We don't just sale cigarettes we have our own brand that we make. The state and the fed. government gets a bundle of money from us in taxes. You could look its in the archives so do some research. I don't have the time to keep answering the same things over and over.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143419 --- 03/15/05 07:26 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Quote:

way2savory We pay more to the feds then we get back. We pay to the state and get nothing back. So who needs to pull their hands back and stop taken from who.





You say that you pay to the feds and get nothing back?

If you are a sovereign nation then why do you pay the feds????
Because you are not sovereign, you are a ward of the US government.

Well, who has protected your tribe from other nations/countries for the last 200 years? The US military.

How much would this be worth if you had to have your OWN military forces????

The tribes use all the infrastructure that has been built by the feds, the state, the counties, the cities...
Do yu expect to use this infrastucture without supporting it?

The tribes receieve BILIONS of dollars FROM the US government each year but you get nothing back???
More propaganda.......

The tribe abuses and exploits the justice system that was established by our forefathers.

You fought the colonists and LOST --- go live with your war partner..


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

Top
#143420 --- 03/15/05 11:06 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
bz go back to the land of your forefathers.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143421 --- 03/15/05 12:35 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Quote:

bz go back to the land of your forefathers.




I am already here.

Remember my forefathers PAID your forefathers many many many times for the same land. Not our problem your elders did not pass the money to you.

Did they gamble all the money away.

You lost the war when you fought AGAINST the colonists. The losing party in a war doesn't come out ahead.


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

Top
#143422 --- 03/16/05 10:24 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Quote:

bz go back to the land of your forefathers.




I am already here.

Remember my forefathers PAID your forefathers many many many times for the same land. Not our problem your elders did not pass the money to you.

Did they gamble all the money away.

You lost the war when you fought AGAINST the colonists. The losing party in a war doesn't come out ahead.


.


The same goes for the losing the land claim case. What did you drink to much and can't remember the loss in court. Hahahahah
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143423 --- 03/28/05 04:55 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
This is an older article, it points up some of the abuses of Tribal Sovereign Immunity. Its message is still pertinent today. There are enough people shining the light on the abuses of tribal soveriegnty. This situation will change in the not so distant future.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (Senate - September 03, 1997)




[Page: S8721] GPO's PDF
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on October 25, 1994, Jered Gamache lost his life, and his brother, Andy, was seriously injured on their way home from school when a Yakama tribal police officer, driving at 68 miles per hour, ran through a red light and crashed into their truck. Jered was 18 and Andy was 16. Despite the loss of Jered's life and the injuries to Andrew, the Gamache family has been totally unable to seek damages against the Yakama tribal government for the actions of its police officer.

Now, let us compare this situation, Mr. President, to the case of Abner Louima, the Haitian immigrant who was brutalized a few weeks ago by New York City police officers. According to the New York Times, in addition to the ongoing criminal investigation, Mr. Louima's attorneys are planning to file a $465 million civil damage suit against New York City.

Now, Mr. President, what makes the case of Jered and Andy Gamache different from the case of Abner Louima? The answer is simple: Tribal sovereign immunity. Unlike New York City, the Yakama tribal government can claim immunity from any civil lawsuit, including suits involving public safety and bodily harm, in both State and Federal courts. As a consequence, the lawyers retained by the Gamache family have told them it is pointless to bring any kind of lawsuit. They have no recourse.

New York City does not have sovereign immunity, and thus, of course, is subject to a lawsuit in any amount of money on the part of victims of malfeasance, on the part of members of its police department.

A few weeks ago, up until the present time, the New York Times has run articles and editorials showcasing the Louima case as an example of police brutality and the need for permanent reform. While that case has sparked outrage from editorialists in New York and elsewhere, last Sunday the New York Times vilified my efforts to provide exactly the same avenue for relief to the Gamache family as the New York Times eloquently advocates for Mr. Louima. The New York Times has decided that while it is unacceptable for New York City to brutalize a person, it rejects non-Indians' right to bring similar claims against tribal police agencies in the U.S. courts. So we have 18- and 16-year-old victims who have no recourse.

Enormous injustices can be done whenever a technical claim can prevent the adjudication of a just claim on the part of an individual against a government. It is for exactly that reason that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was long ago dropped by the Federal Government and the State government in cases of this nature.

Let us consider another case, Mr. President, the case of Sally Matsch. When she was fired from an American Indian casino in Minnesota she felt that she was a victim of age discrimination, so she sued the Prairie Island Indian Tribe. The tribe, however, invoked its sovereign immunity against lawsuits in State or Federal courts, and her case was heard by an Indian court on the second floor of the casino and was dismissed amid the sounds of slot machines by a judge who served at the pleasure of the tribal council that ran the casino.

Seventeen years ago I was attorney general of the State of Washington. I brought a lawsuit that asserted the right of the State of Washington to tax the sale of cigarettes in Indian smoke shops to non-Indians. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld our position that those sales were taxable. For all practical purposes, however, in the 17 years since that time, States have been unable to enforce a right that the Supreme Court of the United States said they had because they cannot sue the tribe or the tribal business entities in order to collect those taxes or to enforce their collection. Why? Tribal sovereign immunity.

Barbara Lindsey, Mr. President, is president of an organization of Puget Sound beach property owners in Washington State. In 1989, 16 Indian tribes sued those property owners in the State of Washington claiming that `treaty rights' gave them the right to enter private property to remove clams and oysters. A Federal district court in large measure has accepted that claim, but Barbara Lindsey and the thousands of property owners she represents, Mr. President, cannot sue the Indian tribes for violations of their property rights, even in cases when those violations are obvious and open. The problem? Tribal sovereign immunity.

So, Mr. President, this body will debate next week when it debates the Interior appropriations bill a provision that for a period of 1 year, as a rider on the appropriations bill, requires the waiver of tribal sovereign immunity on the part of those tribes--and I believe it is all of them--whose governmental entities, whose police forces, are being funded by money appropriated by the Congress out of the taxes collected from all of the American people. The proposal does not change any substantive laws. It simply says if, in fact, the law has been violated, there should be a remedy in a neutral Federal court--we have not extended it to State courts--but in a neutral Federal court.

Is it fair to prevent a family from seeking justice for the wrongful death of their son? Is it fair that a claim of age discrimination cannot be made or decided in a neutral court? Is it fair that a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on taxes cannot effectively be enforced? It is not, Mr. President, and claims that sovereignty is somehow undercut by saying that the sovereign is subject to the laws is simply not the case.

The claim of those who believe we should make no change is a claim that an Indian tribe can act in a totally lawless fashion and not be held responsible in any court of the United States for those lawless actions.

It can be dressed up in whatever fancy language about sovereignty that one may propose, but it comes right down to that proposition: Is it fair that if you are injured by a New York City policeman you can sue New York City,

but if you are injured by a Yakama tribal police officer, you may not sue its tribe. The doctrine is one that stems from the kings of England. It is an anachronism in today's world. Under constitutional guarantees of due process to every American citizen, every American citizen should be granted the opportunity to bring his or her case in a neutral court and get an answer as to whether or not crimes have, in fact, been committed. The only issue that will be involved in this case is, Should any government be permitted to act in an entirely lawless fashion and not be called to account for its acts? The answer to that question is `no'. We should not be involved in that kind of action, and the only body with constitutional authority to make that decision across this United States is the Congress of the United States. The buck stops here.


[Page: S8722] GPO's PDF

Top
#143424 --- 03/29/05 08:51 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
" This is an older article, it points up some of the abuses of Tribal Sovereign Immunity. Its message is still pertinent today. There are enough people shining the light on the abuses of tribal soveriegnty. This situation will change in the not so distant future." Didn't you know Tribal governments are the only bad governments in the world. If you could do away with Tribal governments what government would you go after next. I don't think any of the states around New York pay New York taxes. Are they next if so then move on to them as you have just as much chance to do away with them as you do us. LOL deam on grinch.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143425 --- 03/29/05 01:26 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Okla: Today the Supreme Court issued their ruling in the Sherill matter, the Oneida tribe has to pay real estate taxes on properties they have recently acquired or will acquire in the future. How do you think this will effect your properties and the Cayuga Claim?

Supreme Court overturns Oneida Nation case
Tuesday, March 29, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court today delivered a major blow to the Oneida Nation of New York, ruling that the tribe cannot reassert sovereignty over its 250,000-acre land claim area.
In an 8-1 decision, the justices held that the tribe waited too long to assert authority over land it lost more than 200 years ago. "Generations have passed during which non-Indians have owned and developed the area that once composed the tribe's historic reservation," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

The tribe has been able to repurchase properties within the claim area. But the court said taking the land off the local tax rolls and removing it from local jurisdiction would "seriously disrupt" existing expectations of the non-Indian community.

"The Oneidas long ago relinquished the reins of government and cannot regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

The decision reverses a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that favored the tribe. The court sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings, which could include foreclosure on the land because the tribe hasn't paid property taxes to the city of Sherrill.

Justice John Paul Stevens filed the lone dissent. He pointed out that the case was solely about taxation and that the majority essentially engaged in judicial activism by terminating the tribe's historic reservation and all rights associated with it.

"Without the benefit of relevant briefing from the parties, the Court has ventured into legal territory that belongs to Congress," Stevens wrote.

Justice David Souter filed a concurring opinion. He said the tribe's "inaction" contributed to the loss of its governmental rights.

A phone call to the Oneida Nation was placed seeking a comment.

Reached at the Western Governors' Association summit on Indian gaming in Denver, Keller George, a tribal member and president of United Southern and Eastern Tribes, said this morning that the decision was not favorable but that he had not read the full ruling and would comment later. He is scheduled to appear on a panel this afternoon to discuss the growth of Indian gaming.

Top
#143426 --- 03/29/05 06:35 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
"Okla: Today the Supreme Court issued their ruling in the Sherill matter, the Oneida tribe has to pay real estate taxes on properties they have recently acquired or will acquire in the future. How do you think this will effect your properties and the Cayuga Claim?" At this time it doesn't effect us we have agreed to pay the taxes on our land. But I have to agree with Stevens."Without the benefit of relevant briefing from the parties, the Court has ventured into legal territory that belongs to Congress," As an act of congress is the only way to take away rights that come with a res. And congress has to make its intent clear thats what they are doing and that has not been done. If I understand this ruling right it doesn't effect their land claim.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143427 --- 03/30/05 06:46 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
My opinion: We now have some guidelines to follow as laid down in this decision. Some of what I say might be premature as all of this unfolds, but worth discussing in any event. We all know eviction was out of the picture, but now it no longer can be used as a threat in this or any other claim. Reestablishing governmental control by the Tribe is not feasible after so many years, this confirmed by the Supreme Court. Checker boarding will not be allowed. Properties owned by the Tribes will be subject to taxation and other local laws. I wonder how that will effect collection of sales taxes. It would seem the two gas stations are no longer protected by sovereignty, at least until they apply for the land to be taken into trust. That might not be possible because of this decision. It appears a monetary award would be in order and that is under appeal. The Supreme Court made a point the USGovernment is at fault by not taking any action in the early years following the sale of the Oneida Reservation. If that premises holds up, it appears the same rational can be applied to the Cayuga Claim. Their inaction indicates acceptance of those treaties. I would expect any money to be paid would have to be shared by the Feds. If this decision had been available before the hearing in Judge McCurans court, there would never have been a monetary award. The appellate court is reviewing points of law that lead the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings. The ruling of the Supreme Court must be considered by the Appellate court and it is more than probable they will reverse the lower court decision in the Cayuga Claim. It does not seem likely the compacts will pass the legislature or congress in view of this development. The Pompo Bill is looming in the background as well. We will see what we will see.


Edited by grinch (03/30/05 07:08 AM)

Top
#143428 --- 03/30/05 10:16 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
grinch my opinion is your reading way to much into this. " inaction indicates acceptance of those treaties. " The fact that the USA government hasn't done its duties is a given. Theres no way inaction can replace the law that it takes an act of congress to do away with or reduce the size of a res. And then the act must be clear of what the intent of congress is. grinch the 1985 Supreme Court ruling that the treaties are illegal stands.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143429 --- 03/30/05 03:33 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Okla: The brief to the US Appellate court is being amended as we speak to include elements of the Sherrill decision. Keep the word laches in mind. That is extremely important. It is a defense denied by the court originally and now must be considered. Was the Cayuga reservation ever under federal supervision, or did it remain a State reservation? There are other points such as prior payments to the Cayuga, The Tribunal of 1926 etc., amongst the many things in that brief contesting the award made in the lower court. . Taxation was the prime issue in the Sherrill matter the underlying liability issues were not examined. They will be in the Cayuga Claim. The justices have decided land reacquired in the reservation will be subject to local governmental rule including taxes. It is no longer a "slam dunk" land so acquired will automatically be considered sovereign. You did retain your sovereignty in Okla. I cautioned before, the harder the people are pushed the harder they will push back and you may just lose more than you can hope to gain. Congress did nothing for those objecting to these claims, It is doubtful they will do anything to prolong this mess they have helped to create.


Edited by grinch (03/30/05 03:36 PM)

Top
#143430 --- 03/30/05 03:54 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Okla: The brief to the US Appellate court is being amended as we speak to include elements of the Sherrill decision. Keep the word laches in mind. That is extremely important. It is a defense denied by the court originally and now must be considered. Was the Cayuga reservation ever under federal supervision, or did it remain a State reservation? There are other points such as prior payments to the Cayuga, The Tribunal of 1926 etc., amongst the many things in that brief contesting the award made in the lower court. . Taxation was the prime issue in the Sherrill matter the underlying liability issues were not examined. They will be in the Cayuga Claim. The justices have decided land reacquired in the reservation will be subject to local governmental rule including taxes. It is no longer a "slam dunk" land so acquired will automatically be considered sovereign. You did retain your sovereignty in Okla. I cautioned before, the harder the people are pushed the harder they will push back and you may just lose more than you can hope to gain. Congress did nothing for those objecting to these claims, It is doubtful they will do anything to prolong this mess they have helped to create.


Your wrong grinch its how we acquire the land. No matter what the court can't rerule the treaties are legal. The court upheld the 1985 supreme court ruling that the New York treaties were illegal. Like I said grinch your reading way to much into that ruling. I know all the things asked for in that case didn't come to pass with the ruling. If they had the UCE would be dancing in the streets.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143431 --- 03/30/05 04:41 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
As to land reacquired in the Cayuga reservation, we will see what we will see. The attorneys are still assessing the impact of the Sherrill decision. The justices were considering just the Oneida vs Sherrill matter, and did not address the Cayuga claim directly. There are distinct differences between the Oneida claim and the Cayuga Claim. The most glaring, the Cayuga have not occupied nor had a presence here in 200 years or more. There is a crack in the wall, small at the moment, but watch it grow. The balance of power is shifting.

Top
#143432 --- 03/31/05 12:23 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

As to land reacquired in the Cayuga reservation, we will see what we will see. The attorneys are still assessing the impact of the Sherrill decision. The justices were considering just the Oneida vs Sherrill matter, and did not address the Cayuga claim directly. There are distinct differences between the Oneida claim and the Cayuga Claim. The most glaring, the Cayuga have not occupied nor had a presence here in 200 years or more. There is a crack in the wall, small at the moment, but watch it grow. The balance of power is shifting.


grinch like I said the fact that we haven't been there is from our being removed with an illegal treaty like the Oneida. But the record shows we have been trying to come to an agreement for almost 200 years. grinch you can read all you want into this ruling but our case is still standing strong. What balance of power are you talking about the court didn't change anything it cleared up something for the Oneidas we already knew. Only the right way gets things done now they know what they have to do. A lot of Tribes have been buying back land they sold and getting it put into trust. I live on a res. that most of the land belongs to non Indians. When you come from the next co. over you don't pass a sign that reads you are entering Osage co. it reads you are intering the Osage Nation res. it didn't use to be like that. Im not sure how the Osage got it done but they did. I know that it had to do with the fact that congress didn't make an act to do away with the res. The acts of congress that have resized or done away with res. lands have been clear as to what congress was doing. Show me an act of congress that has reduced or done away with the Cayuga res.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143433 --- 03/31/05 07:57 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
"Recognizing these practical concerns, Congress has provided a mechanism for the acquisition of lands for tribal communities that takes account of the interests of others with stakes in the area's governance and well being," the court said.
The statement quoted above is from the Sherrill ruling and refers to the proper way land can be acquired and declared sovereign. The tribes are well versed in that procedure but have chosen not to do that. Now, they must follow established procedure. The Oneida tribe is contemplating putting their properties into trust, and other tribes are thinking along those same lines We can expect the BIA to be overwhelmed with requests to take land into trust. By law the BIA is required to take into account the impact on states, local governments and non-indians. The BIA is biased towards the tribes, and we can expect they will approve most requests with little or no input from others. This being a political process now is the time to begin a counter campaign.. Our legislators, political leaders and community leaders should be contacted and your views made known. A show of unity has to be presented to demonstrate how the expansion of Indian sovereignty will effect our governmental entities. Through the years we have read of the adverse effects on the tax base in areas such as Connecticut, Madison CO, California amongst many others. We should decide for ourselves, is that what we want?

Top
#143434 --- 04/16/05 06:45 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Bump

Top
#143435 --- 04/16/05 07:55 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Indian Sovereign Immunity - Not in NY state.....
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143436 --- 04/17/05 07:21 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Blue Zone: You may be right, the attached article points out a major problem the BIA may have taking land into trust. This article can be found in Indian Times today dated 4/15/2005



ONEIDA NATION HOMELAND, N.Y. - As central New York tribes scramble to preserve their sovereignty in the aftershock of the U.S. Supreme Court Sherrill decision, the BIA is puzzling over a major, and possibly unforeseen, consequence of the decision. The 8 - 1 majority decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected ''unilateral'' assertions of tribal sovereignty on tribally-reacquired land, instead offering the Interior Department's process of taking ''land into trust.'' The Oneida Indian Nation, respondent in the case, announced April 12 it has put in an application for roughly 17,000 acres under the process, and the Cayuga Indian Nation has indicated it will follow suit. According to Mark Emery, spokesman for the Oneida Nation, ''The Supreme Court detailed a roadmap for providing certainty regarding the nation's rights in its lands, and the nation is going to follow that roadmap.'' But the BIA is discovering that these reservations would be its first trust land in New York state. The existing tribal reservations in New York - the Mohawk St. Regis (Akwesasne) reservation, the three territories of the Seneca Nation of Indians, the separate Tonawanda Seneca and Tuscarora lands, Onondaga Castle south of Syracuse, and two state-recognized tribes on Long Island - are not federal trust lands. Franklin Keel, director of the BIA's eastern region, wrote in a letter to the Cayuga Nation: ''The history of Indian lands in the state of New York is quite unique ... [T]here are no Indian lands held in federal trust in the state of New York.'' Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) nations base their ''aboriginal title'' on a term drawn from European feudal law; their lands are ''allodial'': owing title to no other sovereign. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council has nonetheless called for its land settlement to go forward. In an April 7 release, it said its circumstances differed sharply from the Oneidas' in that its settlement established ''contiguous reservation lands with sizable Mohawk populations.'' The council cited substantial local support for the settlement, including an April 4 resolution by the St. Lawrence County Legislature. ''Our land claim settlement is continuing to move forward and receive the support of local communities,'' said Chief Barbara A. Lazore. ''It's a fair settlement and the ratification of the governor's Program Bill benefits all the parties.'' Chief James W. Ransom denounced the Supreme Court's opinion as ''unjust.'' He said it ''overturns fundamental bedrock principles of Indian law.'' He added, however, that it ''does not stop litigation ... and exposes all the parties to years of uncertainty and legal costs.'' None of this background appears in Ginsburg's decision, nor is there evidence she was even aware of it. Her reliance on a process previously unused in New York state could throw large quantities of sand into the gears of a land settlement already grinding to a halt. Five tribes, including three out-of-state claimants, negotiated land settlements with New York state Gov. George Pataki, who has submitted an omnibus bill to the state Legislature. One major deal that would double the size of the St. Regis reservation appears to assume that the new land would assume the same sovereign status as the existing reservation. But since the current reservation is not federal trust land, it is unclear under the Sherrill opinion how this result could be achieved. There is even a remote possibility that the status of existing New York reservations could be called into question. From the widespread gloating over Ginsberg's opinion, there seems no shortage of anti-sovereignty citizens' groups willing to make the challenge. Ginsburg did note that earlier Supreme Court decisions upholding Oneida land rights suits ''recognized the Oneida's aboriginal title to their ancient reservation land.'' But she rejected what she called the Oneida's ''unification theory'' whereby its purchases of its aboriginal land on the open market gave it both ''fee title,'' its rights as a property owner, and ''aboriginal title,'' with national sovereignty. Daniel French, a lawyer for the Cayuga Indian Nation, told the Syracuse Post-Standard that his clients were leaning toward applying to put land they own in Union Springs and Seneca Falls into trust. Until recently the Cayugas were landless, although they are pursuing a suit for their 64,000-acre former reservation. Federal courts have held the land was illegally conveyed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and have awarded nearly $250 million in damages. An appeal of the award in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was in abeyance pending the Supreme Court decision in Sherrill. In the meantime, the Seneca-Cayuga Nation of Oklahoma has avoided a showdown with Cayuga County by announcing they will pay back taxes on a 229-acre farm they own in Aurelius and will drop plans to open an electronic bingo hall. The back tax bill, including interest and penalties, reportedly amounts to $86,000.


http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?feature=yes&id=1096410754


Edited by grinch (04/17/05 08:47 AM)

Top
#143437 --- 04/17/05 07:41 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
My opinion: Those tribes attempting to establish reservations that were never under Federal Trust status have put their brothers the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and others who have or thought they had federal reservations in a difficult situation. Just as titles to our land in the Cayuga and Oneida territories were questioned, turn around is now fair play. According to this article quoting a letter from Mr Keel regional director of the BIA, existing reservations in New York State are not Federal Trust lands. That might indicate they are not sovereign territories. If that holds true, it would appear they are subject to the control of New York State. That would indicate the Tribes (all tribes) in New York State should be collecting sales taxes paying real estate taxes, and abiding by our laws. That brings up questions concerning whatever federal benefits they have received or are receiving, should they have been paid? Our political leaders should press this point forcibly. I would believe the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Nation) are getting very upset over the Sherrill Decision. I have said before, if the Indians push too hard they may lose what they all ready have.

If what this article said is fact, Indian Lands in New York State are not, and apparently never have been under Federal control (trust lands) must be considered by the appelate court during the appeal of the Cayuga claim. If the land in question is not and never was considered federal trust lands, how can the Federal government legally justify its suit against NYS and the land holders for title on behalf of the Indians? This should have been considered a State matter. This was a bogus suit to begin with and if it had been adequately defended from the beginning we would have saved millions of dollars in legal costs.


Edited by grinch (04/17/05 08:50 AM)

Top
#143438 --- 04/17/05 10:34 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

My opinion: Those tribes attempting to establish reservations that were never under Federal Trust status have put their brothers the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and others who have or thought they had federal reservations in a difficult situation. Just as titles to our land in the Cayuga and Oneida territories were questioned, turn around is now fair play. According to this article quoting a letter from Mr Keel regional director of the BIA, existing reservations in New York State are not Federal Trust lands. That might indicate they are not sovereign territories. If that holds true, it would appear they are subject to the control of New York State. That would indicate the Tribes (all tribes) in New York State should be collecting sales taxes paying real estate taxes, and abiding by our laws. That brings up questions concerning whatever federal benefits they have received or are receiving, should they have been paid? Our political leaders should press this point forcibly. I would believe the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Nation) are getting very upset over the Sherrill Decision. I have said before, if the Indians push too hard they may lose what they all ready have.

If what this article said is fact, Indian Lands in New York State are not, and apparently never have been under Federal control (trust lands) must be considered by the appelate court during the appeal of the Cayuga claim. If the land in question is not and never was considered federal trust lands, how can the Federal government legally justify its suit against NYS and the land holders for title on behalf of the Indians? This should have been considered a State matter. This was a bogus suit to begin with and if it had been adequately defended from the beginning we would have saved millions of dollars in legal costs.


You have it all wrong grinch all indian owned land in New York state is held by and protected by aboriginal title. The sherrill ruling was done against fed. laws and will not stand the test of time. The Tribes are under fed. protection by treaties, the land is protected by aboriginal title belonging to the Indians. Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by an act of congress, that has not been done. The state government. fed.courts does not have the power to extinguish aboriginal title or trust status of Indian lands. The records show we hold aboriginal title to that land. What activities done by the Tribes on aboriginal or fed. trust land falls under fed. law. Therefore aboriginal title land does not need trust status to be protected by fed. laws. You see it your way grinch but its just as I have said it to be all along. Congress will have to act to remove our title on our land. And for them to do so the USA will have to compensate us for our loss of our aboriginal right to our land. Now maybe you can understand why the fed. government is on our side in the land claim case. I base my opinion on fed. Indian laws. Your opinion is based on a wish to do away with the land claim.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143439 --- 04/17/05 11:07 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Okla: You better give Mr Keel of the BIA a call and explain all of this to him. If this is the new loop hole, aboriginal title vs Federal trust lands, I doubt it will be accepted by the courts. Lots of luck with that angle. I will remind you the Cayuga lost their "aboriginal title" (if there ever was one) when they fought against the USA during the Revolution. The land became New York State land,a sovereign state at the end of the revolution. It was theirs by right of conquest. Sort of like how the Cayuga, while not a sovereign, forced the other tribes out that were here before them. Look that up in Indian law. The land the Cayuga are claiming in the law suit was GIVEN to the Cayuga during the time of Gov Dewitt Clinton. No aboriginal title, NOt a federal tile, but a State title. They never should have given the Cayuga anything and they came to regret having done so when the Cayuga again fought against the USA in the War of 1812. That GIFT was SOLD back to New York State, and paid for 8 different times. Aboriginal Title? Where ever did you dig that up? LOL


Edited by grinch (04/17/05 03:49 PM)

Top
#143440 --- 04/17/05 11:16 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
Quote:

You have it all wrong grinch all indian owned land in New York state is held by and protected by aboriginal title. The sherrill ruling was done against fed. laws and will not stand the test of time. The Tribes are under fed. protection by treaties, the land is protected by aboriginal title belonging to the Indians. Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by an act of congress, that has not been done. The state government. fed.courts does not have the power to extinguish aboriginal title or trust status of Indian lands. The records show we hold aboriginal title to that land. What activities done by the Tribes on aboriginal or fed. trust land falls under fed. law. Therefore aboriginal title land does not need trust status to be protected by fed. laws. You see it your way grinch but its just as I have said it to be all along. Congress will have to act to remove our title on our land. And for them to do so the USA will have to compensate us for our loss of our aboriginal right to our land. Now maybe you can understand why the fed. government is on our side in the land claim case. I base my opinion on fed. Indian laws. Your opinion is based on a wish to do away with the land claim.




You appear to be confused on what is aboriginal title and trust land and how each can be extinguished.

Aboriginal title refers to the Indians' exclusive right to use and occupy lands they have inhabited "from time immemorial," but that have subsequently become "discovered" by European settlers. County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 470 U.S. 226, 233-34 (1985) (Oneida I); Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 572-74 (1823). Under the doctrine of discovery, European nations that "discovered" lands in North America held fee title to those lands, subject to the inhabiting Indians' aboriginal right of occupancy and use. See Oneida I, 470 U.S. at 234. Aboriginal title, however, was not inviolable. Indians were secure in their possession of aboriginal land until their aboriginal title was "extinguished" by the sovereign discoverer. See Oneida Indian Nation v. New York, 860 F.2d 1145, 1150 (2d Cir. 1988) (Oneida II). Extinguishment could occur through a taking by war or physical dispossession, or by contract or treaty, id. at 1159 (citing 3 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 19 (Lipscomb et al. eds. 1904)), and did not give rise to an obligation to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, see Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 283-85 (1955). The decision in Sherrill is consistent with this position in that it held that despite the claim to aboriginal title the Indians abandoned or was physically disposessed from the land for over 200 years.

Trust land may only be taken by an act of Congress and and would result in compensation being required under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Top
#143441 --- 04/17/05 11:23 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Thanks Dan for providing the case law on this.

Top
#143442 --- 04/17/05 11:44 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
OKla: Thank you for reposting my message. I believe that is a very strong point that bears furthur examination.

Top
#143443 --- 04/17/05 11:44 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Thanks Dan for providing the case law on this.



"Franklin Keel, director of the BIA's eastern region, wrote in a letter to the Cayuga Nation: ''The history of Indian lands in the state of New York is quite unique ... [T]here are no Indian lands held in federal trust in the state of New York.''

Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) nations base their ''aboriginal title'' on a term drawn from European feudal law; their lands are ''allodial'': owing title to no other sovereign."
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143444 --- 04/18/05 06:25 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Indian Sovereign Immuntiy not in NY state.....
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143445 --- 04/18/05 09:57 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Indian Sovereign Immuntiy not in NY state.....


LOL d.a.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143446 --- 04/18/05 01:59 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Sorry Okla - no casino in NY for you.......
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143447 --- 04/18/05 03:24 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Quote:

This is an older article, it points up some of the abuses of Tribal Sovereign Immunity. Its message is still pertinent today. There are enough people shining the light on the abuses of tribal soveriegnty. This situation will change in the not so distant future.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (Senate - September 03, 1997)




[Page: S8721] GPO's PDF
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on October 25, 1994, Jered Gamache lost his life, and his brother, Andy, was seriously injured on their way home from school when a Yakama tribal police officer, driving at 68 miles per hour, ran through a red light and crashed into their truck. Jered was 18 and Andy was 16. Despite the loss of Jered's life and the injuries to Andrew, the Gamache family has been totally unable to seek damages against the Yakama tribal government for the actions of its police officer.

Now, let us compare this situation, Mr. President, to the case of Abner Louima, the Haitian immigrant who was brutalized a few weeks ago by New York City police officers. According to the New York Times, in addition to the ongoing criminal investigation, Mr. Louima's attorneys are planning to file a $465 million civil damage suit against New York City.

Now, Mr. President, what makes the case of Jered and Andy Gamache different from the case of Abner Louima? The answer is simple: Tribal sovereign immunity. Unlike New York City, the Yakama tribal government can claim immunity from any civil lawsuit, including suits involving public safety and bodily harm, in both State and Federal courts. As a consequence, the lawyers retained by the Gamache family have told them it is pointless to bring any kind of lawsuit. They have no recourse.

New York City does not have sovereign immunity, and thus, of course, is subject to a lawsuit in any amount of money on the part of victims of malfeasance, on the part of members of its police department.

A few weeks ago, up until the present time, the New York Times has run articles and editorials showcasing the Louima case as an example of police brutality and the need for permanent reform. While that case has sparked outrage from editorialists in New York and elsewhere, last Sunday the New York Times vilified my efforts to provide exactly the same avenue for relief to the Gamache family as the New York Times eloquently advocates for Mr. Louima. The New York Times has decided that while it is unacceptable for New York City to brutalize a person, it rejects non-Indians' right to bring similar claims against tribal police agencies in the U.S. courts. So we have 18- and 16-year-old victims who have no recourse.

Enormous injustices can be done whenever a technical claim can prevent the adjudication of a just claim on the part of an individual against a government. It is for exactly that reason that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was long ago dropped by the Federal Government and the State government in cases of this nature.

Let us consider another case, Mr. President, the case of Sally Matsch. When she was fired from an American Indian casino in Minnesota she felt that she was a victim of age discrimination, so she sued the Prairie Island Indian Tribe. The tribe, however, invoked its sovereign immunity against lawsuits in State or Federal courts, and her case was heard by an Indian court on the second floor of the casino and was dismissed amid the sounds of slot machines by a judge who served at the pleasure of the tribal council that ran the casino.

Seventeen years ago I was attorney general of the State of Washington. I brought a lawsuit that asserted the right of the State of Washington to tax the sale of cigarettes in Indian smoke shops to non-Indians. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld our position that those sales were taxable. For all practical purposes, however, in the 17 years since that time, States have been unable to enforce a right that the Supreme Court of the United States said they had because they cannot sue the tribe or the tribal business entities in order to collect those taxes or to enforce their collection. Why? Tribal sovereign immunity.

Barbara Lindsey, Mr. President, is president of an organization of Puget Sound beach property owners in Washington State. In 1989, 16 Indian tribes sued those property owners in the State of Washington claiming that `treaty rights' gave them the right to enter private property to remove clams and oysters. A Federal district court in large measure has accepted that claim, but Barbara Lindsey and the thousands of property owners she represents, Mr. President, cannot sue the Indian tribes for violations of their property rights, even in cases when those violations are obvious and open. The problem? Tribal sovereign immunity.

So, Mr. President, this body will debate next week when it debates the Interior appropriations bill a provision that for a period of 1 year, as a rider on the appropriations bill, requires the waiver of tribal sovereign immunity on the part of those tribes--and I believe it is all of them--whose governmental entities, whose police forces, are being funded by money appropriated by the Congress out of the taxes collected from all of the American people. The proposal does not change any substantive laws. It simply says if, in fact, the law has been violated, there should be a remedy in a neutral Federal court--we have not extended it to State courts--but in a neutral Federal court.

Is it fair to prevent a family from seeking justice for the wrongful death of their son? Is it fair that a claim of age discrimination cannot be made or decided in a neutral court? Is it fair that a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on taxes cannot effectively be enforced? It is not, Mr. President, and claims that sovereignty is somehow undercut by saying that the sovereign is subject to the laws is simply not the case.

The claim of those who believe we should make no change is a claim that an Indian tribe can act in a totally lawless fashion and not be held responsible in any court of the United States for those lawless actions.

It can be dressed up in whatever fancy language about sovereignty that one may propose, but it comes right down to that proposition: Is it fair that if you are injured by a New York City policeman you can sue New York City,

but if you are injured by a Yakama tribal police officer, you may not sue its tribe. The doctrine is one that stems from the kings of England. It is an anachronism in today's world. Under constitutional guarantees of due process to every American citizen, every American citizen should be granted the opportunity to bring his or her case in a neutral court and get an answer as to whether or not crimes have, in fact, been committed. The only issue that will be involved in this case is, Should any government be permitted to act in an entirely lawless fashion and not be called to account for its acts? The answer to that question is `no'. We should not be involved in that kind of action, and the only body with constitutional authority to make that decision across this United States is the Congress of the United States. The buck stops here.


[Page: S8722] GPO's PDF






same o same o.you keep posting the same article.but truth be known the tribes have had alot more lives lost at the hands of the u.s. gov..not just during war but by this goverments attempt to exterminate the tribes over the last 200 years.
go spy on your nieghbor.

uce=tax dodgers
_________________________

Top
#143448 --- 04/18/05 03:55 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
American Indian delegation to Washington urges clean energy
© Indian Country Today April 15, 2005. All Rights Reserved
Posted: April 15, 2005
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
Click to Enlarge

Photo courtesy Clayton Thomas-Muller -- Delegation members in Washington included Sharon Buchino; Manny Pino, Acoma Pueblo; Jodie White, Three Affiliated Tribes; Daniel Moon, Goshute; Jihan Gearon, Navajo; Wahleah Johns, Navajo; Gernaldo Lopez, Southwest Workers Union, San Antonio, Texas; and Margene Bullcreek (front), Skull Valley Goshute.
WASHINGTON - A coalition of American Indians recently lobbied Congress for clean energy and a halt to the long-held tradition of making Indian country a dumping ground for nuclear waste, disease-producing coal mines and power plants that destroy the environment.

''American Indians and Alaska Natives disproportionately suffer health and environmental damage from the cradle to the grave of the nuclear fuel chain,'' Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, told the National Press Club on April 5. ''Locating high-level radioactive waste facilities on Indian lands violates the trust responsibility of the United States government, federal laws and treaties, and is an extreme example of the continuing environmental racist policies against Indian people.''

American Indians urged Congress to reject the energy bill again, saying it was essentially the same controversial, pro-industry bill favored by the White House that failed to pass in previous years - and instead initiate legislation to cut levels of greenhouse gases, promote energy efficiency and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

American Indian environmental groups said in a statement that Indian country should no longer be a sacrifice zone for the nation's energy policy: ''Indigenous peoples reject the concept that lands we rely upon to meet our physical, cultural, spiritual and economic means should be viewed as a short-term solution to offset the U.S. energy dilemma. Our cultures should not be sacrificed for the high energy consumption needs of America.''

American Indian groups maintained their opposition to nuclear waste dumping on Goshute tribal land in Utah and on Western Shoshone's Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

As part of the nuclear industry's revitalization, the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress have proposed that the first new nuclear reactors in 30 years would initially be built on or near Indian lands in Idaho and Alaska.

Clean water along the Yukon River in Alaska is also at risk. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering granting a license for a new reactor in Galena, Alaska. Among those concerned is the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, representing 76 Alaska Native governments in the United States and Canada that depend on the Yukon River for clean drinking water and healthy salmon.

Goldtooth said the council has questions regarding ''this nuclear experiment to build this untested reactor on the Yukon River.''

''The high-level radioactive waste from this new reactor in Alaska could end up being transported and dumped at the Private Fuel Storage facility on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Utah.''

Currently, Native environmental groups and the state of Utah oppose the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's granting of a license to the proposed Private Fuel Storage high-level radioactive waste dump. The proposed dump, located 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, would ''temporarily'' store 44,000 tons of irradiated fuel in above-ground dry cask containers.

Goldtooth pointed out that Xcel Energy, formerly known as Northern States Power, is one of the chief proponents for the Private Fuel Storage dump targeted at the Skull Valley Goshutes in Utah.

He noted that since 1987, the nuclear establishment in government and industry has targeted dozens of American Indian reservations for high-level radioactive waste facilities.

''Currently, all have been stopped by concerned Indian grassroots members and our families that have held strong to our traditional spirituality, values and culture. We have formed alliances with other Indian and non-Indian environmental and environmental justice organizations across the country.''


and we say the tribes pollute.





http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410749
_________________________

Top
#143449 --- 04/18/05 06:40 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Quote:

Quote:

way2savory We pay more to the feds then we get back. We pay to the state and get nothing back. So who needs to pull their hands back and stop taken from who.





You say that you pay to the feds and get nothing back?

If you are a sovereign nation then why do you pay the feds????
Because you are not sovereign, you are a ward of the US government.

Well, who has protected your tribe from other nations/countries for the last 200 years? The US military. How much would this be worth if you had to have your OWN military forces????

The tribes use all the infrastructure that has been built by the feds, the state, the counties, the cities...
Do yu expect to use this infrastucture without supporting it?

The tribes receieve BILIONS of dollars FROM the US government each year but you get nothing back???
More propaganda.......

The tribe abuses and exploits the justice system that was established by our forefathers.

You fought the colonists and LOST --- go live with your war partner..


.







Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/news/2003/001213.asp


Navajo vice president addresses Iraq war
Thursday, March 20, 2003

The following is text of a message from Navajo Nation Vice President Frank Dayish Jr.

To: THE PEOPLE OF THE NAVAJO NATION

From: THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NAVAJO NATION

Our great country is facing an almost certain war with Iraq and their leader Saddam Hussein. As your Navajo Nation leaders, we encourage all our Dine’ people to pray for our Navajo military service men and women and all U.S. soldiers, who are prepared to defend our freedom, democracy, and patriotism.

Whether you support this war or not, now is the time for us to unify as a Nation and strengthen our beliefs in our Creator. We humbly ask that you pray for those soldiers on the front lines, overseas, and with homeland security, as they prepare to defend our country against further terrorists attacks.

Let us not forget our Dine’ military soldiers and Native American forefathers who have a long history of fighting for our country and Indian Nations. Native Americans proudly continue to have the highest rate per capita of military service men and women enlisted in our country’s U.S. Armed Forces.

In the event that the United States enters into a large-scale military operation in Iraq, the Navajo Nation will remain open and conduct business as usual. We encourage individuals to stay informed of world events and its impact on the Nation. If anything should change the ‘business as usual’ status, we will use various means of communi-cations to get information to you as soon as possible, which will include Navajo Nation radio stations.

Regardless of our own personal views, we must continue to respect the rights of all individuals and groups who gather peacefully on public property to express their opinions or display their patriotism. Respecting others, regardless of their beliefs, back- grounds, and political affiliations, is part of our culture and what makes the Navajo Nation the great Nation that it is. Without infringing on freedom of expression, we will not tolerate violent behavior or intimidation, and we will closely monitor demonstrations to ensure they do not disrupt the mission of the Nation.

To ensure the safety of our Nation’s security we are currently reviewing a funding grant to apply for a portion of $600 million that is being made available from Homeland Security. Which will enable us to prepare our Public Safety Agency and Office of Emergency Management to prevent, prepare and respond to terrorism.

In addition, the Navajo Nation homepage will update the status of the Nation as needed and provide instructions in the event there is an emergency. The Navajo Nation homepage is at: www.Navajo.org. If you are feeling uneasy or overly stressed, we encourage you to seek out numerous options for counseling and consultation.

Respectfully,

Frank Dayish Jr., Vice-President

THE NAVAJO NATION
_________________________

Top
#143450 --- 04/18/05 07:29 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/news/2003/000825.asp


Inouye ties sovereignty to homeland security
Tuesday, February 25, 2003


CHAMPION: Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) at the winter session of the National Congress of American Indians in Washington, D.C. February 24, 2003. Photo © NSM.

The vice-chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs on Monday said he would introduce a measure this week to restore full sovereignty to tribal governments.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said the bill, which he described as a draft discussion, would be included as part of a homeland security package. He told attendees of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) that the goal was to overturn recent Supreme Court rulings by recognizing that tribes have primary law enforcement duties on their lands.

"Homeland security presents an opportunity," he said, "to secure a status under federal law that will not only recognize your powers and responsibilities as sovereign governments but will strengthen your position and your status in the family of governments that make up the United States."

"Least of all, you should be as sovereign as any state in the union," he added to heavy applause.

Legislation to restore full criminal and civil jurisdiction to tribes has been under intense discussion for the past two years in response to a series of negative Supreme Court decisions that have limited tribal authority over non-Indians. Tribal leaders have cited two cases in particular: Nevada v. Hicks, which expanded state police powers on reservations, and Atkinson v. Shirley, which struck down the Navajo Nation's hotel and occupancy tax. Both cases were decided in 2001.

Inouye urged tribal leaders to capitalize on the focus on the war on terrorism, stating that threats of attacks are indeed very "real." He said his bill will ensure that tribes are treated the same as states for homeland security purposes.

A veteran of World War II, he also sought to draw a distinction between conflicts many in the audience have served in and witnessed. "In those wars, we knew where the front line was -- it was out there," he told NCAI. "This time, the front line is right here."

John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), promoted the effort and said tribes are willing to give up measure of their rights by allowing federal court review of tribal court decisions affecting non-Indians, a sticking point in the debate over tribal sovereignty. He described this "opt in" provision as voluntary.

"It allows the tribes to exercise as much authority as they choose," he said of the bill. "In exchange, because this is a very serious proposal, tribal leaders have had to make some very difficult decisions about one of the reasons why the court has been ruling against us in these cases."

The legislation, which Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), chairman of the Indian panel has said he will support, is part of a larger tribal sovereignty initiative that had its official start on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, when tribal leaders were meeting in Washington, D.C., to discuss overturning the cases. Tribes have organized the 2,800-mile Sovereignty Run to the steps of the Supreme Court and are working on other projects affecting the court and the federal judiciary.

John Gonzales of San Ildefonso Pueblo of New Mexico said the project will be a struggle not just for the tribes. "It's going to test the will, it's going to test the political resolve of those we consider our friends," he said. Gonzales is an area vice president of NCAI.

Inouye said the federal government owes it to Indian people to support their rights. "In many different ways you have paid your dues," he said. "You have not only given your land, you have not only given your culture, you have given your blood for this country."

"It is about time we have a payback."

Relevant Links:
Sen. Daniel Inouye - http://inouye.senate.gov
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs - http://indian.senate.gov



Homeland security presents an opportunity," he said, "to secure a status under federal law that will not only recognize your powers and responsibilities as sovereign governments but will strengthen your position and your status in the family of governments that make up the United States."

family of governments that make up the United States."
_________________________

Top
#143451 --- 04/18/05 08:35 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/006556.asp


States asking too much of tribes, leaders say
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Indian gaming is growing by leaps and bounds but tribal leaders on Tuesday said their path to self-sufficiency is threatened by state demands for a greater share of casino revenues.

Tribal casinos took in $18.6 billion in 2004, the National Indian Gaming Associated reported in a new study. The figure represents a 10 percent increase over the $16.7 billion in revenues for 2003.

The money has been used to provide health care, law enforcement, education, housing and other opportunities on reservations, tribal leaders said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "Simply put, we are self-sufficient again," said Doreen Hagen, the chairwoman of the Prairie Island Community in Minnesota.

But Hagen and others criticized a trend that has emerged in recent years. From California to Minnesota, state officials are pressuring tribes to share more and more of their casino revenues.

" Each year, the Prairie Island Community contributes more than $100 million to Minnesota's economy. We have accomplished this without government subsidies ," Hagen said. "Yet we are constantly criticized for not contributing enough."
In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) demanded tribes renegotiate their compacts and share $350 million in revenues. He based the figure on the $10 billion he said the tribes take in at their casinos.

"That was off by 85 to 95 percent," observed Mark Van Norman, the executive director of NIGA. "So the expectations," he said, "are simply outlandish."

According to NIGA, tribes nationwide are making substantial contributions to state governments. In the new report, An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Indian Gaming in 2004, the organization said tribal casinos and their related businesses generated $1.8 billion for states in the form of state income taxes, sales and excise taxes and other payments. Tribes also contribute $100 million a year to local governments, the report said.

"True economic development always has meant giving back to the community," said Gregg Shutiva, the lieutenant governor for Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico.

Of the 21 states that have entered into compacts for tribal gaming, seven states require tribes to share a portion of their revenues. These include large markets like Connecticut, New York and California, where some tribes have agreed to pay 25 percent of their slot machine revenues to the state. In Connecticut alone, this amounts to about $400 million a year.

In 2004, Oklahoma became the latest state to adopt a revenue-sharing compact. The rapid expansion of the tribal casino industry there is expected to pour $71 million into the state's coffers every year.

But the states, many of which are suffering from budget crises, have not been willing to credit tribes for this influx of cash. In December, National Governors' Association released a report that failed to account for many of the payments states receive from tribal governments.
Next month, the Western Governors' Association is holding an executive summit on Indian gaming in Denver, Colorado. Among the issues to be discussed is the growth of the industry and its effect on states.

Last year, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee advanced legislation to limit how much states can seek under gaming compacts. The effort drew fire from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who was in the midst of negotiating new agreements with tribes. His predictions for more than $1 billion for the state have fizzled into just $16 million this year.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is charged with reviewing compacts for fairness to tribes. But since the start of the Bush administration, when revenue-sharing started to become a bigger issue, officials have only rejected one agreement. The agency let other revenue-sharing compact go into effect without approving or denying them.

NIGA Report:
An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Indian Gaming in 2004 (February 2005)

NGA Report:
The Fiscal Survey of States (December 2004)
_________________________

Top
#143452 --- 04/19/05 08:22 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--internetcigarette0418apr18,0,234763.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

Online cigarette vendors feeling credit card changes


By CAROLYN THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer

April 18, 2005, 4:58 PM EDT

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- For years, getting a deal on cigarettes was as easy as plugging a credit card number into any one of hundreds of discount Internet sites.

But things have been anything but easy lately for the sellers who have raked in tens of millions of dollars from the online sales.


It's been a month since major credit card companies announced they would no longer take part in online tobacco purchases, after being convinced by states' attorneys general and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that virtually all of the sales were illegal.

That sent online sellers either scrambling to set up for alternative payments, like check or money orders, or out of the Internet business altogether.

"A lot of people have lost their jobs. There's been a lot of layoffs," said Rick Jemison, spokesman for Seneca Sovereign Partnership, which represents the Seneca Indian Nation's business community.

Businesses on the 7,000-member tribe's two western New York reservations are among the nation's biggest online retailers. In 2003, 55 Seneca firms sold $347.5 million worth of tobacco products, more than half of them to out-of-state customers.

The tribe's sovereign status allows businesses to forgo charging the hefty state sales tax, giving them a price advantage over non-Indian competitors that has made the extra trip to an online store worthwhile. Cigarettes sell for $15-$28 per carton online, compared with the average of $48 charged off the reservation.

The credit card changes affect non-Indian online sites as well.

"We didn't have the ability to shut down the sites, but the credit card companies had the ability to deny those online retailers the ability to use their credit cards," said Marc Violette, spokesman for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who helped secure the agreement with American Express, Visa, Discover and other credit card companies.

The changes are reflected online, where some sites now ask for customers' patience for the longer processing time in clearing personal check orders. Other sites are no longer active.

Ron's Smoke Shop on the Allegany Reservation sold off its lucrative online business, laying off as many as 120 workers in the process, according to published reports. Owner Maxine Jimerson has said numerous other businesses are doing the same.

The exact number of workers affected is hard to measure since many of the businesses are small, family-owned operations.

A report prepared for the tribe a year ago said Seneca tobacco businesses employed 1,037 people in 2003 and kept an additional 1,700 suppliers and distributors working.

Seneca Nation President Barry Snyder has called the credit card agreement disappointing and said the Tribal Council would seek a dialogue with the state and federal governments.

In announcing the agreement, Spitzer said New York law prohibits the direct shipment of cigarettes to consumers, and that virtually all Internet cigarette sales violate state and federal laws, including tax laws.

The ATF estimated states lose more than $1 billion a year in tax revenue from Internet tobacco sales.

Spitzer also cited inadequate age-verification systems online that allow minors access to cigarettes.

Top
#143453 --- 04/19/05 08:30 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
How will the tribes ever be able to compete with the other business that operate within the law???????????
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143454 --- 04/23/05 01:58 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Ovidian Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/02/02
Posts: 11435
Loc: gone
Why wouldnt they be able to? If they find a niche and fill it with a quality product or service then they should do as well as any others. I would think that having the financial backing of their tribe or tribes would prove to be an advantage. If they were to do trade on an equitable basis with their non-Indian counterparts I would surely frequent their businesses.

Top
#143455 --- 04/23/05 02:04 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
WilllOWisp Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 3828
Loc: Seneca County
I too would shop at Indian owned stores if they were equal on the tax roles. I would love to be able to buy some smudge sticks, Indian made products. As it is now, I don't buy from them because they feel they are not equals and they hurt the economy. I don't understand how US citizens can purchase there with a clear conscience. I hope things change.
_________________________
" Rich People Get Body guards, Poor People get Shot! "

Top
#143456 --- 04/23/05 02:44 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Mysteryman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/08/04
Posts: 2173
Loc: laughing in your face
Let us not forget that the indians are not really sovereign. They think they are and they want to be classified as that but they enjoy free hunting and fishing licenses, they get welfare, medicaid and social security. Those benefits are from the state and federal governments not there own indian community/government.

Sooo boohoo to the indians who have been paid numerous times and fought with the british and lost. Its not everyone elses fault there in the predicament there in.

Top
#143457 --- 04/23/05 03:05 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
The tribes are sovereign when they DO NOT want to pay sales taxes, property taxes, gas tax, cig tax...


But the tribes ARE NOT sovereign when they WANT money from the US government...

Have Their Cake and Eat It Too.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143458 --- 04/23/05 03:13 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Quote:




Indians asking too much from the states
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Indian gaming is growing by leaps and bounds but tribal leaders on Tuesday said their path to self-sufficiency is threatened by state demands for a greater share of casino revenues.

Tribal casinos took in $18.6 BILLION in 2004, the National Indian Gaming Associated reported in a new study. The figure represents a 10 percent increase over the $16.7 billion in revenues for 2003.

The money has been used to provide health care, law enforcement, education, housing and other opportunities on reservations, tribal leaders said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "Simply put, we are self-sufficient again," said Doreen Hagen, the chairwoman of the Prairie Island Community in Minnesota.







Then why ask for more money from the US government??????? (BILLIONS of dollars each year go to the tribes from the US government)
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143459 --- 04/23/05 03:16 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
WilllOWisp Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 3828
Loc: Seneca County
Makes one wonder, doesn't it Bluezone?
_________________________
" Rich People Get Body guards, Poor People get Shot! "

Top
#143460 --- 04/23/05 03:19 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
I am not sure what they have to complain about - they get the best of both worlds. Pay not taxes but receive money from the US government....
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143461 --- 04/23/05 11:01 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

I am not sure what they have to complain about - they get the best of both worlds. Pay not taxes but receive money from the US government....


We pay taxes d.a. and you know it but keep posting the same bs. Check out what we paid in last year and compare it to what the fed government gave us. You are useing services that we paid more into then you did. So what do you have to complain about, nothing so you make up bs to complain about. Your not going to get what you want, yours and my great great great grandkids will be fighting the same fight. Your people took our land and in return promised to take cair of us. You wish to break that promise then give the land back and we will call it even.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143462 --- 04/24/05 05:07 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Quote:

Your not going to get what you want,yours and my great great great grandkids will be fighting the same fight.

.
.
.



-------I am not the one asking for anything??????????

.
.
.


Your people took our land and in return promised to take cair of us.


.
.
.
-------The land was paid for .............

.
.
.

You wish to break that promise then give the land back and we will call it even.






You live on a 1.4 MILLION acre reservation, this is the land that you received for your NY land, in addition to the 8 monetary payments for the NY land.

You made out better because there was only 64,000 acres that your elders sold to NY state and you now live on 1.4 MILLION acres.


Which is larger 64,000 acres or 1.4 MILLION acres?????????????




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

Top
#143463 --- 04/24/05 05:17 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
NIGC rules against Okla. tribe's casino in Kansas

An Oklahoma tribe's out-of-state casino has been deemed illegal by the National Indian Gaming Commission.

A 24-page opinion issued through the agency's top lawyer rejected the Wyandotte Nation's right to game in downtown Kansas City, Kansas. The tribe has been operating a Class II facility on on a sliver of trust land since August of last year, citing historical ties to the area.

But NIGC's acting general counsel, Penny Coleman, said the land was taken into trust too late and for the wrong reasons. While acknowledging that the tribe exercises jurisdiction over the Shriner Tract -- a key factor in the analysis -- she invoked the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's ban on gaming on lands acquired AFTER 1988.

The land, Coleman wrote, does not fall within the tribe's "last reservation," it was not acquired as the result of a land claim and it was not restored when the tribe regained federal recognition in 1978. "Therefore, the tribe may not game on the Shriner Tract pursuant to IGRA," she said in the March 24 opinion.

Reached at his office in Wyandotte, Oklahoma, Chief Leaford Bearskin said NIGC hadn't informed him of its decision, which was accompanied by a letter addressed to him. "I have no comment until I get notified," he said.

Kansas attorney general Phill Kline, though, took it as a victory in his quest to shut the facility down. "We now call upon the Wyandotte Nation to immediately halt gaming activity on the Shriner Tract and to remove all gaming devices to comply with the decision of the NIGC," he said.

Kline's urgency is natural because the state and its four federally-recognized tribes have fought the Wyandotte Nation's gaming plans for several years. The tribes all operate casinos pursuant to compacts with the state.

But Coleman's long-awaited decision has ripples elsewhere because state officials and politicians nationwide are seeking guidance on whether tribes can operate casinos on lands hundreds of miles away from their current reservations or, in some cases, in other states.

Coleman stated that, "This section of IGRA limits, not expands, the right to game. It is clear that Congress intended to allow some gaming to occur on lands acquired after enactment of IGRA under this provision, but specifically disallowed gaming on newly acquired lands far from the current prior reservation."

Affie Ellis, an NIGC spokesperson, wasn't ready to consider the two statements a conflict. "We want to be consistent with what's in section 2719," she said. The Shriner Tract, she noted, "was acquired into trust in 1996 and did not meet any of the exceptions" laid out in the section.

In the Wyandotte Nation's case, that meant first evaluating whether the tribe has jurisdiction over the parcel. Citing a number of governmental actions, including an agreement with the local government, NIGC concluded the tribe indeed exercises authority.

Second, Coleman considered whether the land was in the tribe's "last recognized reservation within the state within which the tribe is presently located." Since the tribe is "presently located" in Oklahoma, where its headquarters are based, she determined that this exception was not met.

Next, NIGC looked at whether the tribe could satisfy the land claim exception. The tribe did purchase the tract with settlement funds but Coleman said the funds were awarded by the Indian Claims Commission, whose purpose was "to ascertain money damages" -- not award land.

Finally, Coleman examined whether the land qualifies as "restored" since the tribe, after being terminated in 1956, regained federal recognition in 1978.

But the tribe does not meet the test due to the 18-year gap between restoration and the Shriner Tract purchase, Coleman said. While the long wait is not a complete bar, she acknowledged, the fact that the tribe received trust land in Oklahoma in in interim detracted from the tribe's case.

Also, Coleman said the tribe has no "historical nexus" to the land even though tribal ancestors are buried in the cemetery. She argued that the tribe lived in the Kansas City area for less than a decade before being removed to Oklahoma.

Coleman's accompanying letter to Chief Bearskin gave the tribe a week to respond to the opinion. Ellis said the agency would evaluate its next step once the response is received.



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

Top
#143464 --- 04/25/05 01:16 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Quote:

Your not going to get what you want,yours and my great great great grandkids will be fighting the same fight.

.
.
.



-------I am not the one asking for anything??????????

.
.
.


Your people took our land and in return promised to take cair of us.


.
.
.
-------The land was paid for .............

.
.
.

You wish to break that promise then give the land back and we will call it even.






You live on a 1.4 MILLION acre reservation, this is the land that you received for your NY land, in addition to the 8 monetary payments for the NY land.

You made out better because there was only 64,000 acres that your elders sold to NY state and you now live on 1.4 MILLION acres.


Which is larger 64,000 acres or 1.4 MILLION acres?????????????




.


Again you have posted about the Osage res. How many times do I have to tell you I am not a member of the Osage Nation. The Osage sold their Kansas res. and paid for their 1.4 MILLION acre reservation. in what is now Oklahoma. This same twist is getting old at the lest you could do is come up with a new spin. LOL Do you think if you keep posting this lie it will come true. LOL
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143465 --- 04/27/05 07:12 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Quote:



Your people took our land and in return promised to take cair of us.

Do you think if you keep posting this lie it will come true. LOL





Show me where the US has promised to take CARE of you????? was this provision in the 'illegal' treaties??????

Why would the US promise to take car of a SOVEREIGN NATION?????

Do you think if you keep posting the lie about 'illegal' treaties it will brain wash you even more??????

How could the treaties be 'illegal' when your tribe has been receiving payments????

I ask you in an earlier to post when your tribe first brought your cliam foreard but you have not shown any proof accept that it was in the 1980's. This is when gaming was allowed to the tribes. 'Casino-shopping' or 'reservation-shopping'??????............


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

Top
#143466 --- 04/27/05 07:17 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Okla - In another post you complained that NY bought your land but then turned around an sold the land for more money. This is called risk-investment. Purchases of this sort take place ever day. Individual/business buy items at prices and then turn around and sell at a higher price. The tribes do it with the cig, gas, oil sales everyday.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143467 --- 04/27/05 07:28 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Defense rider targets Alaska Native contracting
Monday, April 25, 2005

A rider tucked into the $81 billion defense appropriations bill approved by the Senate last week could limit the number of sole-source contracts for Alaska Native corporations and Indian-owned businesses.

In recent years, Alaska Native corporations have won BILLION-dollar contracts for defense and military work. Under a program meant to benefit minority and disadvantaged businesses, the contracts are awarded without opening them up to competitive bidding.

The program has drawn scrutiny in recent years among Democrats, labor unions and non-Indian businesses.

Critics are now turning their eyes to Congress. Just last month, the leaders of a key House committee launched an investigation into Native contracting. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) of the House Government Reform Committee say they are concerned that most of the work is being done not by Native corporations but by non-Indian subcontractors.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) has joined the effort, inserting a paragraph into the defense bill that targets this practice. Without mentioning Native corporations by name, the rider redefines the meaning of "prime contract" to include not just the corporations but their subcontractors. The change will impact how the government meets its overall minority contracting goals.

As written, the rider only applies to contracts awarded by the Department of Energy. Most of the large-dollar contracts won by Native corporations have come from the Department of Defense.

The House version of the bill doesn't include the language either. A joint House-Senate conference committee is meeting to hammer out the differences between the two versions.

Nevertheless, the Native American Contractors Association, a Washington, D.C.-based alliance of Native corporations, said it was worried about the rider. "NACA is concerned potential legislative actions may diminish current programs and negate the historical progress and positive effects of previous initiatives," the group said in a statement.

The scrutiny so far appears limited to Alaska Native corporations, some of which maintain close ties with powerful Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). It was Stevens who rewrote the Small Business Act to create the minority contracting program and exempt the corporations from limits on the size and dollar-value of the contracts.

But some Indian advocates fear tribal- and Indian-owned businesses in the lower 48 are at risk.

"The issue of any 'special' federal contracting incentives for American Indians and Alaska Natives continues to be one of a lack of education for the general public, non-Native business owners and, to a large extent, Congress," Homer said. "Tribes are not a minority group, but sovereign nations that have a unique relationship with the federal government that is defined and protected by constitutional law -- the legal basis for federal programs for Indians."

A $170 million defense contract awarded to two Alaska Native corporations came under fire but the courts said the Stevens program was legal. Last year, two Alaska Native corporations won sole-source defense contracts worth up to $500 million after they partnered with large non-Native companies that would have had to otherwise compete for the work or may have not been eligible for the work on their own.

In 2002, a Chugach subsidiary won a $2.5 billion contract -- to be shared with two partners -- for public works, engineering, aviation and marine-support services at a missile testing facility in the South Pacific.

The language in the Senate version of the appropriations bill reads as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTS

SEC. 6023. Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 644), is amended by adding the following new paragraph:

`(3) For purposes of this section, the term `prime contract' shall, with respect to the Department of Energy, mean prime contracts awarded by the Department of Energy, and subcontracts awarded by Department of Energy management and operating contractors, management and integration contractors, major facilities management contractors, and contractors that have entered into similar contracts for management of a departmental facility. Contracting goals established for the Department of Energy under this section shall be set at a level not greater than the applicable Government-wide goal.'.

Section 15g is important because it defines the goals of government contracting to "small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and small business concerns owned and controlled by women." By counting contractors and subcontractors as required by the Domenici rider, the goals for minority contracting would be met quicker.



WOULD A NON-INDIAN BUSINESS CONSIDER THIS NON-BID PROCESS AS 'ILLEGAL'??????????
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >