FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 6 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#600632 --- 07/07/07 12:37 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: newsman38]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
NYACS TV commercial at
http://www.nyacs.org/TVad7-07.htm

Note - you have to push the triangle to play the ad - push it a second time if it doesn't start.


Edited by Rich_Tallcot (07/07/07 12:39 PM)

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#600684 --- 07/07/07 04:56 PM Re: Cayuga settlement offer [Re: bluezone]
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: sworldt
No even though i am for economic development and cooperative agreements. This is one that would put the community in the middle of a legal battle between the two tribes.


What legal battle would that be?


sworldt - hard question for you to answer?

.



BZ: I didn't answer you because, common sense does.A little common sense will tell you that IF the counties side with one tribe over the other the tribe being pushed out will give every legal challenge.Hence catching the two counties in the middle.
If there is to be ANY agreement that affects both tribes than both tribes should be at the table along with the state,and county leaders.
_________________________

Top
#600930 --- 07/08/07 01:22 PM Re: Cayuga settlement offer [Re: sworldt]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: sworldt



BZ: I didn't answer you because, common sense does.A little common sense will tell you that IF the counties side with one tribe over the other the tribe being pushed out will give every legal challenge.Hence catching the two counties in the middle.
If there is to be ANY agreement that affects both tribes than both tribes should be at the table along with the state,and county leaders.




Why would another tribe disagree about your tribe building a museum?

As Okla has stated before that the only reason your(his) tribe wants the land is to build a museum.

Sworldt is all for economic development but ONLY if his tribe is the only benefactor.---interesting????????

And if the cayuga tribe were to build a casino in Auburn then you would be against it even though you have stated repeatedly that a casino would be an economic benefit (your words).----interesting?????

looks like the pot calling the kettle black...........



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

Top
#600935 --- 07/08/07 01:36 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: newsman38]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: newsman38
Casino deal deadline set

Seneca County lawmaker David Dresser, chairman of his county's Native American Affairs committee, is pushing both counties to vote simultaneously July 24.

"All the legislators should step up to the plate and vote on it," said Dresser, who favors the proposed deal.

2007 Syracuse Online, LLC.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
By Scott Rapp
Staff writer


Vote NO...............this is a lose lose for taxpayers.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#600992 --- 07/08/07 04:24 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: bluezone]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
What this proposal does is settle a non exisistent land claim, which is one way for a tribe to secure a casino. It circumvents the land into trust process that is going to be a rocky road at best. To accomplish this end around scheme requires local cooperation and approval and one way to get that is to bribe(oops) offer a cut of the phantom profits to the local communities to garner that support.

It is just another scam, not worth the paper it is written on. It will not fly for numerous reasons, and if by chance it ever did will be unenforceable. To proof that out, look to the history of these compacts, treaties here and elsewhere.


The offer is from a faction whose leadership is in dispute. It attempts to eliminate competition from another faction who threatens law suits. It ignores the fact the Cayuga Tribe, the real tribe is located in Canada and not a party to the original land claim, or the numerous schemes, err proposals, to settle what the court has already settled. If memory serves me correctly a faction of this tribe sold the reservation to NYS some 200 years ago and a protest was lodged by the true Cayugas at that time negating that scheme. I wonder if NYS ever got back what they paid the "wrong group" then? This proposal is repeating history and making the same mistakes.

What about the other tribes of the Iroquois, especially the Oneida who will object to this compact, or the Senecas who are fighting NY over collection of sales taxes. Does anyone really believe they will just quietly accept this proposal giving up a good deal of indian sovereignty with out lodging objections?

And if the casino never materalizes or is not profitable, where will this faction get the money they promise to NYS or to the Counties? Some say NYS is guaranteeing the payment to the counties, yeah right that is until the administration changes. And what about sales taxes, why should any group be allowed to keep half of the sales taxes collected? Why not offer this same deal to the local merchant?


Edited by grinch (07/08/07 04:48 PM)

Top
#601002 --- 07/08/07 05:06 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Mr Talcott or Mr Warren: Is there any or has there ever been any land in New York State held in trust by the Federal Goverment for Indian Tribes?

In a casual conversation with a county official I mentioned my belief there never had been trust land in NYS and was told that was not true. This source mentioned the Mohawk and the Senecas as having federal trust lands.

Top
#601006 --- 07/08/07 05:47 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
I found an article concerning the Mohawk Reservation written by Dr Veronica E Velarde Tiller and here are a few excerpts. They seem to bear out the fact the Federal Government does not have land in trust in NYS for the Mohawk. Dr Tiller is a member of the Apache nation.

http://www.cradleboard.org/sites/akwesasn.html Read the entire article where the following excerpts were found:


"Because the State of New York never ceded any land to the federal government following the ratification of the tribe's constitution, the Mohawk Reservation has never been federal territory. New York State granted its portion of the land to the tribe in 1796 under a treaty signed with the Seven Nations Confederacy, to which the St. Regis Mohawk belonged."


"During the Revolutionary War, while most of the Seven Nations Confederacy supported the British, the St. Regis Mohawk were among the minority who supported the Americans. In 1796 the land claim of the Seven Nations was signed whereby New York State ceded over six square miles and some additional collateral land in return for a promise by the Indians to abandon any further land claims in the state. The state had agreed to pay annuities to the tribe under negotiated treaties; in the mid 1830s it modified the practice by beginning to make payments only to the New York side of the reservation. In the 1930s, the federal government proposed the Indian Reorganization Act, which the St. Regis Mohawk formally rejected in 1935. In 1953 the federal government moved to terminate the reservation, an attempt which the St. Regis successfully overturned."

All of the above information is from "Tiller's Guide to Indian Country"
by Veronica E. Velarde Tiller.
BowArrow Publishing Company Albuquerque NM USA.
SSBN 1-885931-01-8 Copyright 1996.
Used by permission.
http://www.tillerresearch.com/

About Tiller Research...


Name
Tiller Research was founded in 1980 by Dr. Veronica Tiller and is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The original focus of the organization was to provide thoroughly researched and detailed information about modern-day Native American issues to laymen as well as professionals.

As widely diverse as the 562 tribes are, there are still many fundamental issues that are similar for all tribes across the country. The basic information formed the foundation of what was to become the Tiller's Guide to Indian Country. After the considerable effort of organizing, documenting, and personally interviewing hundreds of tribal employees, personnel, and members across the United States, Tiller's Guide was published in 1996 by BowArrow Publishing. BowArrow Publishing was founded in 1995 and is the publishing arm of Tiller Research.

Upon publication, there was immediate acceptance of the Guide throughout academic and government agency circles as an authoritative resource of information about modern-day Native American tribes. This recognition continues with the release of the updated and expanded 2006 edition and includes significant endorsements from the library community and private enterprise.



About the Author...


A member of the Jicarilla Apache Nation of New Mexico, Dr. Veronica E. Velarde Tiller is firmly established as a noted historian and is recognized internationally as a contemporary authority on modern-day life of Native American tribes.

As owner and CEO of Tiller Research Incorporated, she has served as a research consultant for tribes and tribal organizations both in the United States and Canada and has written several books and articles about Native American issues.







Edited by grinch (07/08/07 05:58 PM)

Top
#601013 --- 07/08/07 06:01 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Dan, do you have knowledge of this person or her Guide to Indian Country? If so, what does it say about the Cayuga and the Seneca Cayuga Tribe?

Top
#601016 --- 07/08/07 06:09 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
The following was a letter to the editor in a local paper-


Land claim proposal is not legal

To the editor:

Is the proposed Cayuga settlement illegal?

Let's review history and why I would say yes.
The restrictive-fee status would give legal sovereign title to the tribe. This is New York state sovereign title. This is worse than a title held by a government trust. Let's start at the beginning around 1754 and the French and Indian War. All six nations gave the title of all their land to the British, in exchange for their help in fighting the French.

In 1783, at the Treaty of Paris, the British gave the former Iroquis title exclusively to New York state, which still has that land title today. (The Six Nations have only a possessive title.)

At the 1926 Internaitonal Tribunal, we held that New York has exclusive rights to make a contract with the Iroquis and that it was of no concern of the federal government. The Supreme Court, in the Cayuga case, also stated that the federal government had no interest in the Cayuga case.

When it is New York title that is being surrendered, and both the Supreme Court and the 1926 Tribunal stated it is no concern of the federal government, why is the U.S. involved?

Why should New York give up its sovereign land rights, which it has held for over 200 years and which the Cayugas had completely abondoned in 1800.

Powers not delegated by the Constitution are reserved for the state, which forbids the government from diminishing the state's sovereignty for any reason.

So, I content the present proposed settlement is illegal.

Federal Indian law only allows for land to be given to the tribe if the tribe drops a pending land claim in exchange for such a setlement. (The Cayugas have no land claim to exchange.)

I believe the feds cannot put the land into trust for the Cayuga. It would be illegal.

Harry Pettingill jr.
Seneca Falls
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#601018 --- 07/08/07 06:31 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: bluezone]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Thanks. A letter is a letter, much as a post is a post. I am seeking some authoritive information that confirms Mr Pettingill's information. I believe what he said in the letter, but would like to see the source reference to confirm his information relative to land into trust. I have read the 1926 Tribunal of Paris resolution and I am aware of how NYS acquired the land.

It would appear that some if not all of the county officials are relying on others for their information and they or I may be mistaken about trust lands for tribes in NYS. If there is none that must be proven before they will accept it as fact. If this proposal is accepted it may set a precedent that may not be in the best interests of anyone but the tribes.

I seem to recall a letter from the BIA being received by someone, either the tribe or the State saying there never had been federal trust land in NYS for tribes. Anyone recall that?

The post I just made from Dr Tiller said the Mohawk formerly rejected the 1934 Indian Reor Act and have no federal trust lands. Mr Talcott has said the Cayuga did the same, if so, it would seem the BIA has no authority to take NYS sovereign land into trust for the Cayuga nation.

It would not hurt to get a second opinion concerning land into trust for tribal nations and that is why I support the suggestion by Mr Ricci, the county should consider that before accepting this proposal.


Edited by grinch (07/08/07 06:42 PM)

Top
#601023 --- 07/08/07 06:42 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
To date there are no "trust land" in New York. There are currently pending trust applications but to date no land in New York is held in trust for an Indian nation or tribe.

In the United States' motion to dismiss my action (Warren v. United States) they state in their memorandum of law "The title of restricted fee land is held by the Indian tribe with specific federally-imposed restrictions on its use and/or disposition. See 25 U.S.C. 177. In the original thirteen States, Indian lands are typically held in restricted fee, not trust. See City of Sherrill, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005)." ( page 3 n. 2 of http://www.upstate-citizens.org/USDC-USA-MOL-Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf )

Top
#601028 --- 07/08/07 06:52 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: dwarren]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
As I am not an attorney I am unsure of what that motion means.

If I am viewing this proposal correctly, they want the two counties to agree to allow them to place 10000 acres into restricted fee land rather than into trust. That negates the land into trust applications and makes it easier for them to secure land they will declare as sovereign territory.

That leads one to believe the BIA is reluctant to grant trust status to the various applications. The threat the BIA will grant trust status to their land purchases is being cited by some to coerce the towns and counties into acceptance of the current proposal. That would set a precedent that can be used by other tribes.


Edited by grinch (07/08/07 06:54 PM)

Top
#601030 --- 07/08/07 07:09 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
Here you go right from the State of New York itself: "Not surprisingly, no Indian land in New York has ever been held in trust status for the Oneidas or any other Indian group." (Page 3 last sentence of first paragraph of http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/legal_protection_pdf/oingrp3memo.pdf )

Top
#601055 --- 07/08/07 09:31 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: grinch
Mr Talcott or Mr Warren: Is there any or has there ever been any land in New York State held in trust by the Federal Goverment for Indian Tribes?

In a casual conversation with a county official I mentioned my belief there never had been trust land in NYS and was told that was not true. This source mentioned the Mohawk and the Senecas as having federal trust lands.


Dan answered with the documentation. I'll just add here that, the way I was told - the BIA granted trust status for the lands the Seneca applied for regarding a casino, BUT, it was never followed through on. Following the Sherrill ruling, Jim Cason switched these to restricted fee - which is all they can get in NYS.

Trust status does not apply and the ONLY way they can create a reservation here is if we GIVE it to them.

Trust lands are not applicable to New York because of preemtion rights and, therefore, no reservation can be forced upon us by the federal government. Restricted fee may also not apply, but being an Act of Congress, might not revert back to taxable fee simple status should anti-trust lawsuits prevail.

Furthermore, the same United States Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Sherrill has not changed and their is no reason to believe reasonings would change relating to trust applications that would create the same problems as in Sherrill, to a state in which they do not apply, to a tribe that rejected the Indian Reorganization Act and all its benefits - including trust application benefits, to a tribe that has a reservation in Cattaraugus County.

The main thing this proposal does is create a 10,000 acre reservation and eliminate any challenge to its creation.

We should
* expect the BIA to decide in favor of some trust land.
* plan on challenging that ruling, which would prevent it from becoming designated so while in court.
* again demand our federal representatives to represent "us" and stop playing politics.
* and reject this proposal.

Top
#601363 --- 07/09/07 03:20 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Thanks to both of you.

It appears that land now held by the Mohawk, the Seneca and other tribes is being held as restricted fee land, is that correct?

Still a bit puzzled about what to expect.

If they cannot have trust lands in NYS how can the BIA legally grant trust status to some land? Why not just go for restricted fee land and avoid a court test?

That seems to be an empty threat and I would expect any such ruling to be challenged in court. The response of NYS to the proposal of the Oneida for land into trust appears to have valid arguments which will prevent that from happening. It would seem those same arguments would pertain to the Cayuga and the Seneca Cayuga applications for trust status on their holdings.

So that brings up restricted fee land. Does the BIA have authority to place the land into that category? I tend to believe they would need local and state approval before that can be accomplished and is the reason the Cayuga are offering money to the State and to the Counties.

The Cayuga proposal to provide money to the State of NY is to secure their approval. Of course, some greedy politicians are or will back this proposal. That greed is also evident on the local scene as some of our local pols are saying it is a good thing.

Good thing for who?


Edited by grinch (07/09/07 03:36 PM)

Top
#601413 --- 07/09/07 05:51 PM Re: Cayuga settlement offer [Re: bluezone]
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: sworldt



BZ: I didn't answer you because, common sense does.A little common sense will tell you that IF the counties side with one tribe over the other the tribe being pushed out will give every legal challenge.Hence catching the two counties in the middle.
If there is to be ANY agreement that affects both tribes than both tribes should be at the table along with the state,and county leaders.




Why would another tribe disagree about your tribe building a museum?

As Okla has stated before that the only reason your(his) tribe wants the land is to build a museum.

Sworldt is all for economic development but ONLY if his tribe is the only benefactor.---interesting????????

And if the cayuga tribe were to build a casino in Auburn then you would be against it even though you have stated repeatedly that a casino would be an economic benefit (your words).----interesting?????

looks like the pot calling the kettle black...........



.



How many times do i have to say this I"M NOT A TRIBAL MEMBER of ANY tribe. HELLO ANYONE HOME. And no i have no vested interest either way it may go.Sorry i just live on Columbus St. in Auburn.
_________________________

Top
#601466 --- 07/09/07 08:45 PM Re: Cayuga settlement offer [Re: sworldt]
RJFDdriver Offline
Member

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 125
Loc: USA
There is only one reason whay the Cayuga Nation wants this deal to go through. That is to obtain a class III casino near New York City. I say we keep them from getting that casino by voting it down. It will hurt them in the pocketbook, because they would have to go for trust land here and we all know that a casino here would not be as profitable as near New York City. Let them try to put land into trust here, let them build a casino or class II gaming facility here. It will not survive with all the class III competition that is surrounding them. (three casinos in Buffalo area and Turning Stone)

Turn down this deal!!

They will come back to the negotiating table and if the state plays hard ball this time, a better deal can be gotten.

I propose the state do this:

1. The Cayugas geta class III casino in the Catskills

in return the Cayugas do the following:

1. Stop purchasing land in cayuga and seneca Counties
2. Stop appling for trust lands or restricted fee land in Cayuga and seneca Counties.
3. Collect sales tax at their current establishments and forward the appropriate amount of taxes to the various taxing entities.
4. If they want a presents in cayuga and seneca Counties, place a meuseum or place of worship on one of the parcels currently owned by them and have it tax exempt similar to our churches.
5. Live amoung us like we do

There should be no reason for them to object to thia if they really want a casino down state. New York State hold the key and needs to play hard ball with it.

Top
#601479 --- 07/09/07 09:25 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
The only way the Senecas were able to place the land they acquired into restricted fee status was it was Congressionally granted to them in the Seneca Nation Settlement Act not the Indian Reorganization Act. That is why the Cayugas are pushing for a settlement, they are unsure whether or not any of the land they acquired on the open market can be placed into trust. Therefore they are looking for a settlement of their land claim in order to obtain two things: 1) a Congressionally sactioned way to obtain land in trust or restricted fee status and; 2) to qualify for an exception to the prohibition on gambling on land acquired after October 17, 1988 under IGRA (settlement of a land claim exception).

Top
#601575 --- 07/10/07 06:27 AM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: dwarren]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Dan that is pretty much the way I see it. The Cayuga land claim is dead, this proposal is a way to revive that claim and if accepted provides a "settlement" that would satisfy the clause pertaining to land claim exceptions and allow them to open a class 3 casino. As I have previously stated the money offered to the state and the counties serves to sweeten the pot and buy off the political entities that might object.

RFFdrivr. If a deal is necessary your suggestions have merit, however I am as stubborn as the Cayuga. Why deal at all? There is no land claim. If they apply for trust status fight that in court as land into trust for tribal groups has never been allowed in NYS. I believe the courts will agree, if not then work out a deal. That leaves restricted fee status for land purchases and that requires congressional action. In my opinion federal and state representatives should take note of how many voters exist in groups opposed to Indian sovereignty.

The USA should not be for sale. Once the wall is breached we have lost anyway. Regardless of how much money is promised to Seneca and Cayuga Counties we will have given up sovereign NYS land. Rather than dismantle the country from within consider selling Texas, New Mexico and California to the Mexicans (they were there first) and pay off our national debt. You might as well include Alaska whose multiple tribes are costly to support, sell it back to Russia. Maybe they are better at political correctness than we are.


In the meantime enforce the law equally, by that I mean, if they refuse to collect sales taxes shut them down. If they refuse to pay property taxes (I believe they are now current) follow the law and seize the property. If you or I acted in a similar fashion as the Cayuga we would be dealt with in this manner and I see no reason why they should not be held to the same standards.



Top
#601611 --- 07/10/07 08:37 AM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: grinch
Thanks. A letter is a letter, much as a post is a post. I am seeking some authoritive information that confirms Mr Pettingill's information. I believe what he said in the letter, but would like to see the source reference to confirm his information relative to land into trust. I have read the 1926 Tribunal of Paris resolution and I am aware of how NYS acquired the land.


I was not trying to answer your post but rather just happened to post after your question.

No deal for the tribe.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
Page 6 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >