Topix of Conversation

Why We fight

Recently, our extremely talented and educational blogger Gladys Kravitz answered her own question to us as to why we fight. She wanted to know what motivates us to fight a casino in our community. Here was my response:

What keeps me fighting is the wrongness of this entire situation. The more I learn, the more I want to fight. I got into this because I am worried about the future of our community and the irrepairable damage to our quality of life a casino would bring.

I do it for my family...
I do it for my friends...
I do it for my neighbors....
I do it for my community....

and I do it for me because I know in my heart, not fighting, not standing up for my own rights, for all of our rights, and not demanding a fair and honest process is even more wrong than the casino itself.

NO CASINO!

here is another answer to that question:

Why do I keep fighting? Because it's wrong. It's wrong to be blindsided by a land sale whether or not you've been involved in the politics of the town or not. Our elected officials should have had the forethought to warn us all, knowing the potential impact a sale like this could have to a town and community(...and I'm not talking about some small advertisement in the Middleboro gazette)I fight because will live in a country where things like this should not happen. The process is done so coyly that unless you've lived through it, noone would believe you.I fight because it's important to have a voice and speak out....this is America after all, although that past year has made me wonder how this could happen here.

and another....

I continually remain in the fight for the quality of life for my children. My family has lived here longer than the Mashpee were a real "tribe". A polyglot of "praying indians" gathered in one place does not automatically make any one group a "tribe". I'm not in it for power, popularity or political agenda. I'm in it because it is the right thing to do, win or lose.

and another...

What keeps me fighting? I believe good will overcome evil, but "the good" have to group together & fight long & hard. All of you anti-casino people,cfo.org,all you bloggers, are the good & you all have been fighting this evil, long & hard, so I thank all of you & may the god of your choice BLESS YOU for all you've done in the past yr.

WE WILL WIN, THERE WILL BE NO CASINO IN MIDDLEBORO!!!!!!!!!!

and another...

I fight the casino knowing that it is the symptom of a bigger problem, and that communities all over the country are faced with the very same "done deal" scenario, complete with local elected leaders who have failed to successfully manage a budget and need an easy answer to thier fiscal problems.I fight the casino because the M'boro BOS didn't.I fight the casino because through research I have learned that an apathetic public has saddled me with an inept government, and maybe our battle will help change some of that. I fight this casino because I was one of those people who wasn't paying attention, and I was forced to fight if I wanted to have a say in what I wanted for my community.And I continue to fight because I am paying attention now, and after the casino issue is done, my job as a citizen isn't.As a greatful citizen, I would like to tip my hat to everyone in this fight:-CFO (past and present officers/members); good people who dedicated themselves wholeheartedly to what they believed in.-Bloggers like Bellicose Bumpkin, Gladys Kravits and Carver Chick. Keeping the public informed would have been impossible without you.-And last but not least, I wish to thank everyone who said we had no choice. It forced me to do my own research, and through it, I learned how to effectively oppose you.Keep well & keep fighting, Gladys!

and another....

I fight to educate and share the research with those who; don't have the motivation, the need, the compassion for their neighbors, feel that geography will keep them safe, are hoodwinked by their leaders, mis-informed by the media and feel-good politics. Expanded gambling is not the answer. We should look to build our future on our strengths, and not our weaknesses.

and another...

I was lied to.My property was vandalized.My town and my way of life is threatened.I will never forget.We cannot let this happen.

Now if you consider how this all came about...then I would hope you can begin to understand why we fight. My point here is that people who are against a casino in Middleboro are against it for real and valid reasons. Whether it is because we don't like how this was shoved down our throats and told it is inevitable

resistance is futile...

or how it will destroy our quality of life in our hometowns, or because the process is flawed and the Tribe has no right to call that land an initial reservation, we fight because we know that everything about this nightmare had been wrong from day one. Yet we are constantly told that a casino in Middleboro will bring jobs and money, and how a casino on sovereign land will jumpstart our economy because it is a super special and magical economic engine.... and let's face it, the Mashpee Tribe deserves the land regardless of how the surrounding communities feel or what the law says because the pilgrims were nothing but a bunch of murdering thieves....and if we don't bend over and take it, well....

resistance is futile...

then we are nothing but a bunch of racist, indian hating, evil, lying, ignorant people. We are nazis and dictators...we are scum...and you know what.....it doesn't matter what they say because we know who we are, we know the law and we know our rights.

So we fight.


How anti-casino people fight

Casinofacts.org

Casino Free Mass

How "evil" anti-casino bloggers fight

The Blogfathers


How (some) pro-casino people fight

XXX (cfo member) and XXX (CFO Director) scum sucking toads.

Mommy, why do all the kids at school call you a liar?
Mommy, why is daddy never here when uncle Adam is?
Mommy, why do we have chicken every night?
Mommy. why are you always on the computer?Mommy, when is the man with the marshmellows going to visit you again?

being descended from those dregs of society england sent over on those first boats to plymouth ain't exactly something to brag about. have you read their bios and histories? omg, what a bunch of losers. no wonder the Brits jumped at a chance to dump them here. wicked losas! lmao!

and the pure-i-tans were exactly pure. francis eaton, 1st plymouth carpenter, had a mistress to keep him warm. haha! too funny! lice infested, disease ridden bunch of fornicators...why is everybody so proud to trace their roots back to the mayflower?

This entire area was founded by theives and murderers.

which part of the CFO chicken tastes best? Wing, legs or breast? Time for a pig roast? Anyone know where I can get three little piggies?

Are CFO dumb or just stupid?You people keep saying that this is about a casino. You are nothing but indian haters. You would hate it if they decided to build a dry cleaners or a mall or anything on the land they will own through a legal purchase. It isn't about a casino it is about your hate of them. Well you know what. Why doesn't everyone just go back to where their ancestors are from and who ever remains gets the land.

Call the police. Call DSS. She has kids too.

Casino Factless has done one piece of research and nothing else. Over and over and over again they have been proven wrong.Casino Factless are bigots and racists. They say it will bring crime. Middleboro's got it. They say it will bring prositution. Middleboro's got it. They say it will bring bad elements to town. Mary Tufts won't leave Middleboro alone. Call someone other than the guy from North Stonington who fights against the recognition of Native Americans. If you do call him, ask him what happened to housing prices in his community since Foxwoods opened up as compared to the region. Ask him why he is against Native Americans providing for themselves. Ask him if he blongs or supports CERA (look them up and see what you find).

Well, if they are going to let CFO use the lawn, why not host the KKK's next fund raiser? These secretive harassment groups seem to have quite a bit in common.

and my personal favorite...

If RY is really serious his oranization will get rid of MT's Mini-me CC and the pathetic "1623." Then they may be able to sit at the table with a shread of dignity.

Hey...if I am going to be called a mini version of Gladys Kravitz, then my work has been done. My goodness...I can't think of a better compliment than that. I mean, here we have an extremely talented blogger who has personally witnessed the atrocities of a defunct BoS for the past year, found the courage to actually talk about it and have the "spit in your eye" attitude to call out bad town government and stand up for what is right .... and yet somehow continues to stand up for what she believes in lieu of luid photo contests, threats, harrassment and downright nastiness from a group of people who call themselves "kind and caring citizens" -- and I am being called her mini-me. I am being compared to a woman who has more integrity in her little finger than an entire flock of flying monkeys combined and all I have to say to that is...

THANK YOU!

I am honored. I cannot think of another woman who I know (besides my most excellent mom) that I would like to be considered the same calibur as.....Gladys, you are an inspiration to us all and we love you for it. You ROCK!




And for all the flying monkeys posting on topix, please do us all a favor and just zip it. The gossip, harrassment, paranoid insinuations, cyberbullying and juvenile posts are not helping to heal the damage that has already been done to this community by a casino that isn't even here.

And because I just love this video.... (thank you Gladys - number one on youtube. ya!)

Never give in.. never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force.. never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
- Winston Churchill -

- be the change you want to see in the world -

Amicus Briefly

Where the Middleboro casino issue is concerned, when it rains it pours. The just released Spectrum report has re-kindled the casino debate with it’s not so independent analysis of casino gambling in Massachusetts and actually, I am happy about this. No, not about the content of the so called independent analysis…which can hardly be called independent., but because this report seems to have knocked some sense into our Governor where the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s LIT application and specifically the tribal/state compact is concerned. It is now being reported that the Governor will not entertain compact negotiations unless the land is put into trust. This is good news because I recently received notification that the Supreme Court of the United States will be hearing the Carcieri v. Kempthorne case on November 3rd, 2008. The outcome of this case is a huge deal and is being watched by tribes and casino opposition groups alike nationwide. The bottom line is, the outcome of this case has the potential to change how LIT applications are reviewed and approved for tribes recognized after 1934. The Supreme Court has decided to hear this case and rule on two very important questions:

1. Whether the 1934 Act empowers the Secretary to take land into trust for Indiantribes that werenot recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

2. Whether an act of Congress that extinguishes aboriginal title and all claims based on Indian rights and interests in land precludes the Secretary from creating Indian country there.

The argument for these two questions is summarized below:

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 permits the Secretary to take land into trust for certain Indian tribes, significantly impairing state jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit held that the 1934 Act “positively dictates” that the only Indian tribes for whom land can be taken into trust are those that were “recognized” and “under federal jurisdiction” as of “June 1934”. This Court similarly concluded in that the 1934 Act contained a temporal “recognized [in 1934] tribe” limitation. United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978). The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court decision to the same effect.
The Rhode Island Indian Land Claims Settlement Act provides land specifically for the later recognized Narragansett Indian Tribe and comprehensively disposes of all Indian land claims in Rhode Island. The Tribe received 1,800 acres of land for free. In exchange, Congress extinguished aboriginal title and all Indian interests in land in Rhode Island.

- lower court case number 03-2647 -

Simply put, the Governor of Rhode Island is challenging the Secretary of the Interior’s power to take land into trust for Indian Tribes recognized after June of 1934, after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act. This is the Act that gives the Secretary the authority to take land into trust for Indian tribes. The questions posed in the petition challenges the First Circuits decision to uphold the decision made by the Secretary of the Interior to remove 31 acres of land in Charlestown, RI from the State’s civil and criminal jurisdiction by acquiring the land in trust for the Narragansett Tribe. The Governor of Rhode Island is challenging this decision because there are two independent statutory provisions that prohibit the Secretary from using his trust authority to divest the State of jurisdiction over the 31 acres of land and create sovereign Indian territory in Rhode Island. Twenty-one other States have signed on to this case as Amici Curiae in support of the petitioners. These States are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.

I had the opportunity to read the arguments presented by both Rhode Island and the other Amici States. What I thought would be a boring read actually was quite interesting, and addressed a particular section of the IRA that I have pondered over since the day I read it for the first time. Question one asks that very question so I thought I would share what twenty-two states are saying about the powers of the Secretary to take land into trust for Indian Tribes recognized after 1934. Let’s face it, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Carcieri then in my opinion, they will be upholding Congress’ intent of the regulation, and what they meant when they used the phrase “...any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction…”

I will save question two - which speaks to the misconstrue of the Settlement Act - for another day. For now, here are the arguments for question one.

What Rhode Island Says

The argument submitted by the petitioner (Donald L. Carcieri), is 88 pages long. In a nutshell, the Governor is arguing that the Secretary may not take land into trust on behalf of the Narragansetts because they were neither federally recognized nor under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and because the text of the IRA unambiguously establishes that the Secretary lacks the authority to take land into trust on behalf of the Naragansettts. He argues that Section 5 of the IRA provides that the Secretary may “acquire through purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands …..for the purpose of providing land for Indians.” Therefore, the Secretary must establish that the members of the tribe are “Indians” within the meaning of the IRA.

Section 19 of the IRA provides that “..the term “Indian” …shall include [1] all persons of Indian decent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and [2] all persons who are descendents of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation, and shall further include [3] all other persons of on-half or more Indian blood”.

Rhode Island goes on to say that when the Secretary relies upon tribal membership – rather than descent or blood quantum – to establish that trust beneficiaries are “Indians” under the IRA, the plain language of Section 19 – which encompasses “any recognized Indian tribe now under federal jurisdiction” – restricts the Secretary’s trust authority to property acquired for person who are members of tribes that were both federally recognized and under federal jurisdiction at the time of the IRA’s enactment in 1934. The Secretary may not – through the promulgation of a regulation, or otherwise – expand his trust authority beyond this statutorily imposed boundary.

The argument goes on to define the word “now” from dictionaries published shortly before, or contemporaneously with the enactment of the IRA. The definitions establish that the word “now” means “at the present time” or, synonymously, “at the time of speaking” so to interpret the word “now” to refer to the time that it the IRA is applied, rather than to the time it was enacted, would render the term utterly superfluous.

- brief for petitioner Donald L. Carcieri -

What the other 21 States say

The amici curiae states submitted a 34 page brief in support of the brief filed by Rhode Island. These States have vital interest in this case because of the misinterpretations of the two federal statues, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act. The States argue that land taken into trust for Indians by the Secretary and removed from state authority in several significant respects (including taxation, land use restrictions and certain environmental regulations) limits the States’ ability to exercise their sovereign powers to protect the public on the trust land, which results in the creation of an area largely controlled by a competing sovereign within a state’s borders without its consent. This is contrary to core principles of federalism.

The States point out that the Secretary has already taken into trust several million acres nationwide under the IRA – an area approximately twice the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. The Amici States have a compelling sovereign interest in having the Supreme Court define the proper application of the IRA, particularly in conjunction with settlement acts.

When the Secretary exercises his power to take land into trust, there are substantial and permanent consequences for the impacted state and local communities. This power gives the Secretary the capacity to change the entire character of a state, particularly when the Secretary uses it in coordination with modern Tribes who build casinos that are located in populated areas and existing communities. The States feel that it is incumbent on the courts to vigilantly enforce the limits Congress has placed on the Secretary’s power in order to maintain the proper segregation of powers.

The precise question at issue regarding the Secretary’s power to take land into trust in this case is whether Congress in the IRA intended to allow the Secretary to take land into trust on behalf of Indian Tribes that were not recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934, when the IRA was enacted. Congress addressed that precise temporal question in the IRAs text and clearly provided that the Secretary’s authority to take land into trust is limited to pre-1934 tribes. The IRA allows the Secretary to take land into trust “for the purpose of providing land for Indians” (25 USC 465), and defines the term “Indian” to “include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction.” (25 USC 479). The States argue that Congress’ use of the word “now” in the definition of an “Indian” unambiguously expresses its intent to limit the Secretary’s trust authority to tribes that were recognized and under federal jurisdiction at the time of the IRAs enactment in 1934. The argument cites several cases where courts have repeatedly held in similar circumstances – both before and after the passage of the IRA – that when Congress uses the word “now” in a statute, it intends to incorporate a temporal limitation as of the date of enactment. Therefore, the context of the IRA strongly supports the conclusion that by using “now” Congress intended to limit the Act’s application to tribes recognized and under Federal jurisdiction in 1934. If Congress had intended that land can be taken into trust on behalf of tribes recognized at any time, they would have used the phrase “now or hereafter”, or similar language, or simply deleted the word “now” altogether. There is simply nothing in either the text or the context of section 479 to support the Secretary’s reading of “now” to mean whenever in the future the Secretary chooses to act.

The States also argue that the plain reading of the IRA is consistent with its background and legislative history, meaning the circumstances surrounding the enactment. They argue that the legislative history of the IRAs “now” limitation is consistent with Congress’ intent to limit the IRAs application to 1934 tribes. Representative Howard and Commission of Indian Affairs Collier – two key players in the IRAs enactment – made statements that directly indicate that the IRA was intended to apply only to tribes recognized as of 1934.

“….section 479 defines the persons who shall be classified as Indian. In essence, it recognizes the status quo of present reservation Indians and further includes all other persons of one-fourth Indian blood”

- Representative Howard on the IRA-

Commissioner Collier spoke even more clearly on this issue. An early draft of the IRA defined “Indian” to among other things “include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe.” Senators expressed concern about whether that definition would sufficiently ensure bona fide status and, in response, Commissioner Collier proposed the “now” limitation, which Congress adopted.

The Amici States conclude that reading the IRA to apply only to tribes recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934 is not only consistent with the legislative history directly related to the “now” limitation, it is also entirely consistent with the Act’s broader purposes and history. The IRA intended to help remediate the impact on the then recognized tribes of pre-1934 federal policies and bureaucratic failings, and the intent and purpose of the IRA was “to rehabilitate the Indians economic life and to give him a chance to develop the initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism” resulting from the government’s allotment policy, which began with the passage of the General Allotment Act of 1887 and lasted until 1934, when the IRA was enacted. It was reasonable for Congress to direct remedial efforts toward the tribes that has suffered as a result of disastrous federal policies and bureaucratic failings, rather than allocating scarce resources to tribes that, from the federal government’s perspective, did not yet exist and would not be subjected to those policies.

The Amici States also point out that reading the IRA as it is written does not leave post-1934 tribes unable to obtain land. It simply insures that such grants of land are made by Congress, not the Secretary, thus guaranteeing that the States and their citizens have the full ability to protect their interests through the democratic process.

- brief for Amici Curiae States -

I must say that I am extremely pleased that our Attorney General, Martha Coakley signed onto this brief. If anything, it gives weight to the idea that perhaps our State isn’t so enamored with the idea of an Indian Casino. Even our legislature has shown its reluctance to legalize class III gambling or allow Deval Patrick’s casino dream to come to fruition so voting quickly to approve a tribal/state compact is highly unlikely. Also, the State's newfound reluctance to even think about compacts before a LIT decision is made is a good thing. Best to wait and see how the Supreme Court rules on this case. If they favor Carcieri, then it will take an act of Congress to approve that land in Middleboro – and it will allow us the full ability to protect our interests through the democratic process.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. - James Maddison

- be the change you want to see in the world -

The big bad wolf is not so big and bad

Can the antics on the topix forum bring down the CFO house?

not by the hair of our chinny, chin, chin............so huff and puff, but you can't blow this house in.





No Casino!


- be the change you want to see in the world -