FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 18 of 20 < 1 2 ... 16 17 18 19 20 >
Topic Options
#609623 --- 07/26/07 06:30 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: bluezone]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
The land claim was based on the statement by the tribes that the federal government had to approve any "deal" between NY state and the tribes.

How is now that the tribes want to make a "deal" at the county level?

Makes the whole land claim lacking merit.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#610362 --- 07/28/07 06:32 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: grinch]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
;\)
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#610455 --- 07/29/07 04:45 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: bluezone]
Anonymous
Unregistered


If something good can come out of this, that would be great. I heard that there's a tribe that removes fire retardants from old homes which has been a huge problem. Very cost efficient- no disposal fee. I think it is the Chickasaw tribe come to think of it. Anyone know?

Top
#610921 --- 07/30/07 10:45 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: SilverRose]
Cayuga Boater Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 07/30/07
Posts: 2
Loc: Union Springs, NY
I'd like to second the need for an alternative place to eat other than the Be Happy Cafe in Union Springs, NY. As a resident of Union Springs for 30 years, we always had a wonderful place to eat in town at the location that the Be Happy Cafe is currently in...originally it was Daggett's for decades and then transitioned to The Village Cafe for another decade and both establishments served up great food and friendly service. Unfortunately, the positive experiences of these previous establishments did not continue when The Be Happy Cafe took over in Fall 2006. The Be Happy Cafe remodeled the restaurant quite nicely, but unfortunately the attention to service and quality of food has been completely forgotten. The inexperienced wait staff regularly forget to bring some part of your order; in fact, I have eaten there 6 times over the past year and EACH TIME some part of my family's order was missed, although funnily enough the bill never misses any items. The food that is actually served is pretty low quality fare, serving to fill your belly but not provide much taste. The service is slow (forget eating there on a weekend), and unapologetic for any shortcomings. I've given this restaurant more than a fair chance to shape up and earn my business over the past year, but there hasn't been one visit that hasn't left me frustrated which is not what I am looking for in a dining experience...they should change the name to the Get Angry Cafe because that better describes their customers' experiences. My family will never eat there again, so we have to head over to Aurora or Auburn for a sit down meal.


Edited by Cayuga Boater (07/30/07 10:52 AM)

Top
#611487 --- 07/30/07 10:01 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: Cayuga Boater]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
okla - Now that you know people would like a restaurant than you can start building. No trust land needed for a restaurant. ;\)
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#612131 --- 07/31/07 09:01 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land [Re: Okla.ndn]
tiro Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/27/03
Posts: 18
you have no land unless you pay taxes...that land in trust is a joke!!!

Top
#612132 --- 07/31/07 09:07 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land [Re: Cayuga Boater]
tiro Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/27/03
Posts: 18
the be happy cafe does compare favorably to the other eateries that were there. The service is great and the meals are served in a timely manner. Go back to where you come from boater this a s small town diner.

Top
#612819 --- 08/02/07 08:31 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: bluezone]
SilverRose Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/13/05
Posts: 1998
Loc: Heart of the Lakes
Originally Posted By: bluezone
okla - Now that you know people would like a restaurant than you can start building. No trust land needed for a restaurant. ;\)


They don't have to build - the building is already there - they might have to renovate and add a kitchen, and, if the amount of business demands it, they might have to add an addition.

I didn't even mention the tourist traffic in my original post--that could be a big draw from May - October, then there are hunters... I forgot to mention Camp Meeting, graduation weekends at the High School and Wells College, Freshman Orientation...

I heard just yesterday that the college kids at Wells are excited about the Chinese restaurant going in at the Union Springs plaza - now they don't have to drive to Auburn.

The customer base is there and untapped. Look at the business the Big M does in the summer. Man...I wish I owned the spot.... lol

Okla and SworldT - Here's your chance - the market is there and hungry! Why don't you give it a chance? Build some positive relationships instead of conflict.
_________________________
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Top
#614954 --- 08/07/07 10:58 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: SilverRose]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
A woman was injured while at an Indian casino and sought compensation through the Casino's insurance company and the tribe. She was denied her claim and she brought suit.

Read the attached article as it is a prime example WHY COMPACTS AND WAIVERS OF IMMUNITY DO NOT WORK. Whether or not there is any merit to her claim is not the point, the point is she is unable to have her case heard in a State Court. Tribal courts are a farce, the insurance company ducked their liability under the umbrella of indian sovereignty.

Do not believe for one moment that the tribes will not trot out sovereign immunity in each and every law suit (and there will be many if they are allowed to reestablish locally) as a defense. Under current law they will NOT be held unaccountable.

Metropolitan News-Enterprise



Monday, August 6, 2007



Page 1



Appeals Court Rejects Attack on Indian Tribe’s Immunity



By a MetNews Staff Writer



An Indian tribe whose gambling compact included a limited waiver of sovereign immunity did not thereby consent to being sued in state court, nor can an action be maintained in state court based solely on the alleged unfairness of its tribal proceedings, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.

In a July 18 decision, certified Friday for publication, Div. One affirmed San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Y. Cowett’s order quashing service of Nellie and Keith Lawrence’s complaint on the operators of the Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Casino.

The Barona Band of Mission Indians operates the casino, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 and a compact with the state of California. Under the compact, the tribe agreed, among other things, to establish a tort claims procedure for patrons of the casino and resort, to maintain at least $5 million in liability insurance to cover claims, and to waive sovereign immunity to the extent of its insurance and within the limitations of an ordinance to be adopted by the tribe.

Under that ordinance, patrons may bring claims for injuries resulting from the negligence of the tribe, “its enterprises, agencies, and officers,” or its employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. The ordinance specifies that claims are to be submitted to the tribe’s insurer, and that appeals from rejected claims may be taken to the Barona Tribal Council, sitting as a tribal court.

In 2004, after Nellie Lawrence was injured at the casino as a result of being run into and knocked down, the Lawrences made a $1 million claim, alleging that the person who knocked her down was a casino employee. The insurance carrier rejected the claim, and the tribal council ruled that the negligent party was a fellow patron, not a casino employee, and rejected the claim as well.

The Lawrences then sued in San Diego Superior Court. The tribe demurred, claiming sovereign immunity, to which the Lawrences responded that the tribe waived its immunity by entering into the compact and that the claims process was “grossly unfair” to claimants.

But in an opinion by Justice James McIntyre, the appellate court agreed with Barona and the trial judge that neither the compact nor the right to due process provided the Lawrences with enough ammunition to pierce the tribe’s immunity.

The justice explained that a waiver of sovereign immunity is not, in and of itself, a consent to be sued in state court. He distinguished last year’s ruling allowing the Fair Political Practices Commission to force tribes to comply with campaign finance reporting laws.

That decision, McIntyre noted, was based on federal constitutional provisions that the state Supreme Court said allowed the state to enforce laws governing its electoral processes. The ruling cannot be stretched to cover a private action related to a commercial activity, the justice concluded.

As to the alleged unfairness of the tribal proceedings, McIntyre said that issue could not be litigated in state court for several reasons, including the plaintiffs’ failure to raise the issue or plead the relevant facts in their complaint; the lack of any provision in the compact designating the state courts as the forum for such a challenge; and the requirement that any waiver of sovereign immunity be narrowly construed.

“That the Lawrences find Barona’s choices unacceptable does not render Barona subject to suit in state court,” the justice summarized, although he suggested that the language of the compact might give them a remedy in federal court.
The case is Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Casino, 07 S.O.S. 4886.




Edited by grinch (08/07/07 11:02 AM)

Top
#615932 --- 08/08/07 05:56 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: grinch]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
In my post above I made the following statement: "Do not believe for one moment that the tribes will not trot out sovereign immunity in each and every law suit (and there will be many if they are allowed to reestablish locally) as a defense. Under current law they will NOT be held unaccountable"

After re reading that post I noted an error which I will correct by posting what I meant to say.

"Do not believe for one moment that the tribes will not trot out sovereign immunity in each and every law suit (and there will be many if they are allowed to reestablish locally) as a defense. Under current law they will NOT be held accountable".

Top
#617854 --- 08/12/07 09:51 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: grinch]
newsman38 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/21/01
Posts: 4947
Loc: Fourth Estate
Far From the Reservation, but Still Sacred?

The battlegrounds are ancient sites like the religious circles, burial grounds and mountaintops across the West that Indians hold sacred and are protected by federal environmental and historic preservation laws.

After successful smaller battles, Mike Jackson, leader of the Quechan Indians, is now challenging a bigger project, arguing that the construction of a planned $4 billion oil refinery in Arizona could destroy sites sacred to his tribe.

What makes this case different from more traditional fights between Indians and developers is that the refinery isn’t on the Quechan reservation or even next to it. In fact, the refinery is planned for a parcel of land some 40 miles to the east of the reservation, on the other side of Yuma and the Gila mountain range. But Mr. Jackson and the tribe’s lawyers argue that before the land can be transferred to the company building the refinery, Arizona Clean Fuels, or construction can start, an exhaustive archaeological and cultural inventory must take place.

Mr. Jackson has already stopped two planned projects — a low-level nuclear dump and a $50 million gold mine on the California side of the border — both also well away from the Quechan reservation.

Business and political leaders in Yuma argue that it’s little more than a land grab by Mr. Jackson, a dubious attempt by the tribe to block much-needed development and assert claims to territory lost long ago.

“It’s a question of how far does their sphere of influence go,” says Ken Rosevear, executive director of the Yuma County Chamber of Commerce. “Does it go clear to Phoenix? To Las Vegas? The whole West?”

Mr. Rosevear may be exaggerating, but his fear illustrates just what’s at stake. If the Quechans’ lawsuit succeeds, it would bolster the efforts of other, larger tribes to block development on territory where they also once lived and prayed.

ALREADY, in northern Arizona, Navajos, Hopis and other Indians have effectively stopped plans to expand a ski resort roughly 50 miles from the nearest reservation, after convincing a federal appellate panel in March that using wastewater to make artificial snow would desecrate peaks long held sacred.

Leaders of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, meanwhile, have been using similar arguments to block drilling for coal-bed methane near their reservation in Montana. Pumping water out of underground aquifers to extract natural gas will harm the spirits that inhabit the springs and streams where the Northern Cheyenne worship, says Gail Small, a Northern Cheyenne tribe member who heads Native Action, an environmental group she founded after graduating from law school.

Adding weight to her argument is the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, passed by Congress in 1978, which acknowledges the link between native American religion and land both on and off the reservation.

And, thanks to the rise of casino gambling on Indian reservations, many tribes now have the money to challenge natural resource companies, real estate interests and other wealthy players who have long held sway in the West.

The son and grandson of tribal leaders, Mr. Jackson, who is 60, says that in the past, “the government gave us funds just to survive and they didn’t hear a word from our people.” Now, he says, local leaders like Mr. Rosevear have to come to him. “They come, smile, and shake my hand, but they don’t like it. Too bad. That is how the process is now.”

“We’re a tenacious people,” he says, citing earlier fights of a different kind between the Quechans and the Spanish, the Mexicans and the United States cavalry. “We’re still here. The cavalry is gone.”

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: August 12, 2007
The New York Times

Top
#620856 --- 08/16/07 03:51 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: newsman38]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
The following is a quote from an article in the Syracuse Post Standard dated 8/16/2007:



"Richard Rifkin, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's lead negotiator on Indian affairs, said in Syracuse today that he believes a proposal to give the Cayuga Indian Nation a Catskills casino in return for a cap on sovereign land in Cayuga and Seneca counties is the best solution for all parties."


Best solution? I suggest you get your head out of the sand and read what is occuring in "Indian Country" Below is a prime example of what occurs when tribes are allowed to govern some sections of land, but not others. The best solution for whom, the developers who stand to make millions from a casino. Or possibly the best solution for the politicans who cannot wait to get in line for the political contributions to their war chests.

Certainly it is not the best solution for Seneca and Cayuga County.


Below is another article that demonstrates why Indian Sovereignty over lands that have not been under their control for centuries is not workable. Read the article for the nightmare it is causing for law enforcement officials and the residents of San Juan county in Farmington New Mexico.



Checkerboard region sees unique emergency issues
— By Alysa Landry — The Daily Times
Farmington Daily Times
Article Launched:08/16/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

AZTEC — Reservation and trust lands make up more than 60 percent of San Juan County, which can lead to jurisdiction nightmares when a person calls for emergency help.
According to County Commissioner Ervin Chavez, the dispatch center and responding law enforcement officers run into problems when the call originates from the southern portion of the county.

Known as the checkerboard region, south San Juan County is divided into chunks of land owned by different individuals or entities. The giant checkerboard includes tribal land, trust land and private land, presenting a unique challenge to law enforcement.

"When a crime occurs, it makes it very difficult for the Sheriff's Office to respond," Chavez said. "They don't know on which land they're on."

In a normal setting, jurisdiction is based on the geographic territory, regardless of an offender's or victim's age, race, ethnicity or citizenship. In the checkerboard region, however, the opposite is true.

According to rulings handed down by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Country — defined as reservation land, dependent American Indian communities or allotments — is subject to different rules. Distinguishing between Indian or non-Indian ethnicity is the critical factor in determining criminal jurisdiction.

The BIA also created a test to help law enforcement agencies decide which sovereign entity has jurisdiction over a crime in Indian Country. The test prompts the communications centers to ask who did what to whom. States only have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes in Indian Country when the offender and victim are both non-Indian.

Questioning jurisdiction delays response, Chavez said. He claims when Navajo residents in the checkerboard region call for help, calls get lost in the communications center in Aztec.

"People are asking why they even call 911," he said. "We don't see an officer for hours or days."

According to San Juan Communications Center Director Daryl Branson, operators dispatch county or state officers to the checkerboard region whenever there is a crime in process or an immediate threat to life. The officer stabilizes a scene and stays until a Navajo Nation Tribal Police officer arrives. Beyond that, state police or county officers can't do anything, he said. The only exception is the few cross-commissioned state police officers who are authorized to make arrests on tribal land.

In an emergency, Branson said, the communications center keeps a caller on the phone while it contacts the Navajo Nation Tribal Police in either Shiprock or Crownpoint. In a non-emergency situation, dispatch may give the caller the number for tribal police, he said.

"The only time we won't dispatch is if there's not something in process, or if there's nothing for them (officers) to do," he said. "If there's an immediate or potential threat to life, we will not let them (callers) hang up."

Jurisdiction is different when it comes to fire or medical emergencies, Branson said. The San Juan Communications Center dispatches emergency personnel to non-criminal situations regardless of a caller's location. Operators can also give emergency medical instructions over the phone.

Even in emergencies, it's taking too long for an officer to respond, Chavez said. Part of the problem is the size of the county and the distance tribal police officers have to travel. Officers driving from Crownpoint face driving times of greater than two hours.

"Things aren't getting investigated," Chavez said. "Criminals are getting away."

San Juan County Sheriff Bob Melton said the county is doing everything it can. Even when the county is the only agency to respond, its hands are tied. Authority is limited to keeping the peace until a tribal officer arrives.

"From a legal perspective, it's out of our jurisdiction," he said. "It's just the right thing to do (to respond).


Alysa Landry:

alandry@daily-times.com



Edited by grinch (08/16/07 06:08 PM)

Top
#637608 --- 09/10/07 08:49 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land [Re: tiro]
Cayuga Boater Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 07/30/07
Posts: 2
Loc: Union Springs, NY
The poor service and food served in the Be Happy Cafe leave a lot to be desired for a diner in any town...don't use the small town aspect as an excuse as the previous 2 diners on that exact spot were also small town and wonderful. You must be part of the Cafe ownership or a friend of theirs not to see that...it seems that the Be Happy Cafe relies on customer apathy and the lack of other local options to get away with their nonsense.

Top
#639282 --- 09/12/07 11:32 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: bluezone]
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
The Tribes can make a deal with who ever they want, but it will need to be approved by the federal government. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Now if you can't get approval would it be wise to go ahead with a deal? Thats what took place when New York made the deal with the Tribes for their land. The federal government wouldn't give it's approval but the state did the deal anyway.
Originally Posted By: bluezone
The land claim was based on the statement by the tribes that the federal government had to approve any "deal" between NY state and the tribes.

How is now that the tribes want to make a "deal" at the county level?

Makes the whole land claim lacking merit.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#639445 --- 09/12/07 04:13 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: Okla.ndn]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Now therein lies the argument. Was the approval of the Federal government necessary for NYS to purchase back their own land? NYS is and was its own sovereign and the argument is the Federal Goverment did not have to approve those sales. It will be tested in court one day.

Top
#639578 --- 09/12/07 09:36 PM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: grinch]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: grinch
Now therein lies the argument. Was the approval of the Federal government necessary for NYS to purchase back their own land? NYS is and was its own sovereign and the argument is the Federal Goverment did not have to approve those sales. It will be tested in court one day.


Until SCOTUS rules, each side will have their own opinion. Aside from the exclusions in the TIA's - to which neither the Oneida or Cayuga claims were filed under TIA laws that were in effect at the time - the actual land sales in 1788 & 1789 did not exclude the use right state land reservations in the sales. Such were stipulated as "of the ceeded lands".

Top
#639700 --- 09/13/07 06:55 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Originally Posted By: grinch
Now therein lies the argument. Was the approval of the Federal government necessary for NYS to purchase back their own land? NYS is and was its own sovereign and the argument is the Federal Goverment did not have to approve those sales. It will be tested in court one day.


Until SCOTUS rules, each side will have their own opinion. Aside from the exclusions in the TIA's - to which neither the Oneida or Cayuga claims were filed under TIA laws that were in effect at the time - the actual land sales in 1788 & 1789 did not exclude the use right state land reservations in the sales. Such were stipulated as "of the ceeded lands".



Would you explain that? I am not quite clear as to its meaning.

Top
#639741 --- 09/13/07 07:47 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: grinch]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
1 The whole basis of the land claims were the Trade and Intercourse Acts.
a. State’s rights arguments would question whether the feds even had the Constitutional authority to pass such an act.
b. The early acts had time limits of two years, the 1790 Act had no exclusions for settled areas or states, but expired in 1792. The 1793 Act and those following up to 1834 excluded areas surrounded by settlements, and arguably limited these acts to the territories. I believe it was clause 13.
c. The 1834 Act removed that exception and that is what evolved into 25USC 177
d. The Oneida claim was filed under the 1790 Act, which wasn’t even a law at the time of the alleged violations. The Cayuga claim was filed under 25 USC 177, which was written 39 years after the alleged violation. Neither applied as they weren’t even laws in force at the time.
e. Even if the appropriate acts were cited, exclusions would have allowed the states to make the transactions.

2. Even so, the original sales included all the lands in question and merely established a use right of the state lands as specified in clause one of both the Cayuga and Oneida sales stating “of the ceded lands”.
3. Neither side will be satisfied with lower court rulings and none of the appeals to the higher courts have been argued on the merits of the case.

Top
#639820 --- 09/13/07 10:43 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

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

Top
#640526 --- 09/14/07 08:05 AM Re: Seneca-Cayuga land sold [Re: grinch]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
You're welcome. As noted, both sales were prior to the Trade and Intercourse Acts. The cases proceeded because the lower courts ruled that the state lands used for the tribes were never sold and the judges ignored the "of the ceded lands".

There was obvious bias, as attorney Bill Dorr argued in court that the claims for land were barred by the time constraints for new claims under the Indian Claims Commission Act (I believe the time expiration for new claims was 1951) and the Cayuga had never filed a claim for land prior to 1980. Judge McCurn replied that he was disregarding that law because then the Cayuga tribe wouldn't get any land.

The case was dismissed in appeals anyway, but both of these arguments should have been re-argued. However, the problem being in appeals is once a court finds reason to dismiss, they consider all other arguments moot.

They are moot for that purpose, but allow for continued argument under applications for trust lands. Of course trust lands don't apply here but that's another argument which should be augmented with these points reconsidered.

Top
Page 18 of 20 < 1 2 ... 16 17 18 19 20 >