Tuesday, September 2, 2008

When Elephants Speak

Here we go again…the Enterprise is reporting that the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe will begin talks with the State on the proposed casino. This recent article comes on the heels of a similar article from Monday, which Bellicose Bumpkin blogged about. What bothers me about these news articles is that in reading them, one could begin to think that we have some sort of short and long term memory malfunction...that we cannot remember the issues surrounding the Tribe's application or all the events that have happened over the past year. Luckily, us anti casino bloggers are blessed with memories like elephants....we never forget.

Sometimes I feel like I am on this not so merry-go-round of “the casino is coming…the casino is coming….time to make a deal”. Haven’t we already covered this ground? First of all….the Tribe can talk to the State or Governor Patrick all it wants but that doesn’t change one simple fact – they cannot enter into an agreement with the State when there is no land in trust to negotiate about. It will be denied by the Secretary.

Second of all, as we have learned, the State does not have to negotiate anything with the Tribe – land in trust or not. Once again, the Tribe can talk all they want…heck, they can even write up a Tribal-State compact but that does not mean Massachusetts has to play. Class III gambling is illegal in this State and according to section 2710 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)….

Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are….located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and…conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact.

So let’s break this down. The State of Massachusetts does not allow Class III gaming so technically, it does not need to allow class III gaming for the Tribe if they ever manage to get the land in Middleboro placed in trust. Oh sure, our State allows non-profit organizations to conduct “bazaars” to raise money for specific purposes and has strict regulations specific to these types of events. For example, in order to have gaming events such as raffles, casino or Las Vegas nights, or poker tournaments, they may only be conducted by a non-profit organization (whether or not incorporated) that has been organized and actively functioning in Massachusetts for at least two years and is one of the following:



Veterans’ organization chartered by Congress;
Church or religious organization;
Fraternal or fraternal benefit society, such as an Elks Club or union:
Educational or charitable organization;
Civic or service club; or
Other club or organization operated exclusively for nonprofit purposes.

These groups are qualified nonprofit organization and represent limited exceptions to the general law prohibiting gambling (I love that this State calls it what it is...gambling) in the Commonwealth.

- mass.gov-

So yes, this State does allow certain groups, organizations or entities to conduct class III gambling under strict regulations so I am sure the Tribe will try and force the Commonwealth’s hand with their inevitability scare tactics and say that since these non-profits can have certain class III games, then they can too….oh yeah, they already did that.

Gosh, perhaps the State should ban class III gambling all together for everyone so the Tribe can’t try and force us to give up our sovereignty….oh, but then all the other groups who use these events to raise money for charities would lose out. Some also might say that the right thing to do would be for the Tribe to not ask for class III gambling at all as not to potentially ruin it for all those non-profit organizations who hold these events to raise money for good causes…..but then again, I highly doubt the State would go to such extremes to try and make a point. Nope, all the State has to do in this case is follow Texas' lead and not negotiate a compact.

The important thing to remember here is that even if our Governor goes ahead with these “talks”, slot machines are not legal in this State so there will be no slots for the Tribe even if they do manage to get the land placed into trust and are able to negotiate a compact and have it approved by the Legislature…and we all know its about the slots.

The fact of the matter is, the Tribe must have an approved Tribal-State compact in order to conduct any class III gaming and as we have learned from Texas, we have sovereign rights as a State that the Tribe cannot take away from us. I would hope they understand and honor the sanctity of our sovereignty just as much as they expect us to honor the sanctity of their sovereign nation status. For the record, I do not believe that I, nor anyone else, is required to support this casino project to honor the sanctity of the Tribe’s sovereign rights. Call me what you will, but the Tribe’s sovereignty, though long awaited and well deserved, does not guarantee them the right to build a casino that will rival Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, which brings me to my next “bone of contention” with this LIT process.

The above mentioned Enterprise article quotes Tribal Leader Sean Hendricks as saying

“No matter what ultimately happens with the negotiations, please know that it is the tribe's intent to operate America's most successful casino resort in Middleboro," Hendricks wrote in his request to open negotiations. He said the tribe plans to "build something that's equivalent to Fox Woods or Mohegan Sun."

Really? But…but…just five short months ago, this Tribe presented a casino plan for the land in Middleboro to the BIA and to us, John Q. Public, at a Federal hearing specifically designed to identify real environmental impacts - a plan that did not look anything like a Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun. I am talking about the same casino plans that were submitted to the BIA and posted in the Federal Register… you know…the plans that the Environmental Impact Statement will be addressing. I seem to remember these plans did not reflect a facility that’s equivalent to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun….not even close. So….those plans were what?.....nothing? a farce? ….maybe a lie or misrepresentation meant to mislead the public as to the real plans the Tribe and investors have for the land?....maybe they were hoping to make the whole environmental impact statement easier to deal with, or hope the BIA would say an EIS wasn’t needed, that it would issue a FONSI (findings of no significant impacts) or maybe they were hoping to just do an environmental assessment? How can anyone address real impacts from their “casino plans” when what they really want to do once the land is in trust is to build a monstrosity to rival Foxwoods on 500 acres of land – forested wetlands, no less.

How in the world can anyone, including our Governor, think that the Tribe or the investors are being open and honest with them about anything? Jeez….they have already bamboozeled the BIA with their so-called plans…now they want to bamboozle our State too. Here is another jaw dropper of a statement:

Hendricks said he will lobby for Middleboro to get a larger piece of the state's share of the casino profits, and said he's not forgetting about the surround towns. "We want what's best for the whole region."

Again…..really? Aside from the fact that Middleboro has already made their bed with the investors and don’t deserve to take any more, especially from the State’s share, I highly doubt Mr. Hendricks really wants what is best for the whole region. In fact, I seem to remember a certain local radio show where he made his cameo appearance and said he the Tribe would not deal directly with surrounding Towns ….they would need to go to the State with their issues, not the Tribe. So my question is, if the Tribe won’t even talk directly with the surrounding Towns, how in the world can he say they will negotiate for these Towns?

I seem to remember sitting in a hot stuffy auditorium a little over a year ago at my Town's Community Forum on the proposed Middleboro casino, a forum that the Tribe was invited to attend....which they didn't. My Town's BoS held a forum for it's residents to discuss their concerns over a proposed casino.....the BoS and our Town Planner was hoping that someone from the Tribe would attend so they could talk to us about our concerns...maybe even alleviate some of them.....but they didn't come. They didn't care about our concerns over potential impacts then and I am certain they don't care even now, and if they do, they have a funny way of showing it. So again I ask, how in the world can Sean Hendricks say he will negotiate for my Town when he doesn't even know what the specific impacts to my Town will be....or those impacts specific to Lakeville, Plympton, Halifax, Plymouth, Kingston, Bridgewater, and all the other towns in our region.

My personal take on all of this is that the Tribe will say and do anything it needs to get this land placed in trust so they can build their pipe dream. In order to improve their chances, they not only scared the hell out of residents of a small quiet southern New England town to get them to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Tribe and town, but they were also less than honest with the BIA and the public about the scope of their project at the hearing in March, and are now saying whatever they need to say to get our State willing to negotiate with them.

Since we are like elephants who never forget, let us not forget a few other very important facts here . First of all….as other States have shown, Massachusetts is not required to negotiate with the Tribe and without a compact the best they could hope for is a glorified bingo hall. Secondly….. the new section 20 regulations are now in effect and the land in Middleboro does not qualify as an initial reservation. As it stands, their application does not show past and current significant ties to the land in Middleboro and will most likely be denied. And last, but certainly not least, the Amicus Brief will be heard by the Supreme Court in November and the outcome could very well make their application null and void. Requesting that our Commonwealth begin negotiations is quite premature at this point and our Governor is better off telling them that this State will not even entertain the idea of compact negotiations over land that is not only not owned by the Tribe, but will not make negotiations about land that is not in trust. There is no point in negotiating something that does not exist.



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


Wednesday, August 20, 2008

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 -





Monday, August 11, 2008

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 -

Saturday, August 2, 2008

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 -

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Left Ahead..Invasion of the Anti Casino Pod People!

Who needs a radio show when you can podcast your thoughts, feelings, and most importantly your facts regarding local and State politics on the web? Apparently not Ryan Adams, blogger extrordinare. He is an advoacate for a better future by giving an analysis of the current political situation in our wonderful State. It is no wonder that he has much to say about politics in Massachusetts and is a powerful adversary of expanded gambling in Massachusetts. I have recently had the pleasure of meeting Ryan in person and I must say that he is a wonderful, passionate and extremely dedicated political voice. I highly recommend reading his blogs. He has been and continues to be, a strong voice in the CasinoFreeMass movement, as well as other anti gambling issues our State faces year after year.

So on that note, if you missed it, our beloved (not to mention educational and enternaining) blogger friend Gladys Kravitz was a guest speaker on Ryan's podcast. You can listen to the podcast at Left Ahead.

Thank you to Ryan and thank you to Gladys. I think my favorite quote of the podcast was "...it's like a flesh eating bacteria..."

Note to Ryan:

I too love the Gladys Kravitz videos you posted, but my personal favorite is.......









"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience above all other liberties." - John Milton, Areopagitica, 1644


"Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus


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

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The BIA Behaving Badly

So here I was having a perfectly glorious summer when I hear something that brought my lazy summer days to a screeching halt. Apparently there is this rumor floating around the area that the Mashpee Wampanoag Land In Trust Application will be approved this summer. Now I am not one to take any rumor too seriously but I must admit, I was a bit taken aback by this one. So of course, I looked into it….or, more accurately, several of us looked into it.

Come to find out by doing a bit of research, the BIA has this nasty little habit of approving LIT applications for Tribes before an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been completed for the land in question. This news is a bit distressing, especially when you consider the fact that Land in Trust regulations requires compliance with NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Regulations. As stated on their home page, NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.
To meet NEPA requirements federal agencies must prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Basically, NEPA requires an environmental scoping session and a completed Environmental Impact Statement for all Land in Trust Application decisions. It would seem however, that in some instances, the BIA has approved Land in Trust applications without a completed EIS, such as what happened recently in Rohnert Park, California. Here is what the Attorney who filed the suit has to say:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs jumped the gun by attempting to transfer title to this poorly planned site even before completing the environmental impact statement,” Volker said. “Operating a casino at this site poses huge environmental impacts, including massive traffic congestion on Highway 101 and over-pumping of local wells."
“The BIA has thumbed its nose at the public by attempting to end-run the laws that protect the public from needless environmental harm,” Volker said. - the press democrat

This bad habit is causing some major waves throughout several States. Throughout this Country, individual communities and States are standing up for their inalienable sovereign rights granted to them in the United States Constitution. They are questioning the BIA's decision making process and in some instances, the SOI’s right to take land off the tax rolls regardless of a State’s or community's position on the matter.

Consider the Buffalo, New York case that my friend Gladys Kravitz recently blogged about….or how about the Columbia River Gorge case in Oregon. These are but a few examples of the BIA behaving badly.

So what about us?

Please allow me clarify the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe's position with regards to their Land in Trust application.

The application is specific in that it asks approval for three things:

1. Land(s) into Trust
2. Reservation status for said land(s)
3. Permission to game under the initial reservation exception of IGRA.

This is an all or nothing situation for the Mashpee Tribe. They can't get just one of these things....the application has to be approved for all three requests or the application will be denied. Since we already know the land in Middleboro does not meet the requirements for an initial reservation, this application should be, and most certainly will be denied.

Furthermore, neither office of the BIA in Tennessee or Washington DC has the authority to approve the application because of the initial reservation proclamation request. This request leaves the authority squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of the Interior. In the Mashpee Tribe's case, the BIA does not have the authority to make the decision on thier application. If they do, they are essentially violating federal statutes.

The question being raised in the Carcieri v Kempthorne case is whether or not it is unconstitutional even for the Secretary of the Interior to take land into Trust in certain circumstances. I had blogged about this several months ago. Recently, I received the following comment on that particular blog.

Adam B has left a new comment on your post "Don't Tread on Me":

CONGRESS delegated the authority to take lands into trust for Indians to the Secretary of Interior in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. CONGRESS has plenary power regarding Indians and Indian tribes, leaving the States out of the mix (with the exception of the ability to appeal decision by the BIA). Since Congress has delegated the authority to the Secretary to do what the 1934 act proscribed there is left no claim that the BIA/Secretary is acting beyond their authority. - Posted by Adam B to carverchick at July 14, 2008 11:12 PM

This is an excellent, albeit misleading comment. First of all, States are not kept out of the mix in regards to LIT decisions. In fact, the regulations clearly state that once an application is received, the affected State, community and interested parties will be notified and allowed to comment. As far as Congress having plenary power regarding Indians and Indian tribes, this is the very argument that the Amicus Brief for the Carcieri v Kempthorne case is tackling, and which will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall or early next year.

This case is essentially questioning whether or not a Tribe recognized after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 is actually covered under the Act. Several States, including Massachusetts have signed on to this case.

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was enacted by the U.S. Congress on June 18, 1934 and its purpose was to decrease federal control of American Indians and to increase tribal self-government. The act sought to strengthen tribal structure by encouraging written constitutions and to undo the damage caused by the
Dawes General Allotment Act by returning surplus lands to the tribes. The IRA says:

The term "Indian" in this Act shall include all person of Indian decent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present boundaries of any reservation, and shall further include all other persons of one-half or more Indian blood.

It also says:

The term "tribe" wherever used in this Act shall be construed to refer to any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo or the Indians residing on one reservation.

It goes on to say that the Act shall not apply to any reservation which votes against its application. The elections were to be held within one year of the passage of the Act, and it was the responsibility of the SOI to conduct the elections.

Sec. 18. This Act shall not apply to any reservation wherein a majority of the adult Indians, voting at a special election duly called by the Secretary of the Interior, shall vote against it application. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior, within one year after the passage and approval of this Act, to call such an election, which election shall be held by secret ballot upon thirty days' notice.

The way I read this is a majority of the Indians (identified in the first paragraph) in all tribes (identified in the second paragraph) had to vote to accept or reject the application of the IRA within one year of it's passage. Since the Act says that it covers all of the tribes that are recognized now and it requires all recognized tribes to vote on the Act, then it stands to reason if they didn't exist to vote on whether or not to reject the IRA, how are they one of the tribes covered under the Act? This is in essence, one of the arguments in the Amicus Brief.

So if the tribe is not recognized under the Act, then the only other way for the Mashpee tribe to acquire land is through an act Congress, as I tried to explain in Lucky Thirteen, and unless Adam B or anyone can provide me with irrefutable evidence and not some sentence that is cherry picked to make his argument, then I stand by what I say, and I stand by 25 CFR 151.3.

§ 151.3 Land acquisition policy.
Land not held in trust or restricted status may only be acquired for an individual Indian or a tribe in trust status when such acquisition is authorized by an act of Congress.

So the question is, does an Act passed by Congress (in this case the IRA) have authority over a States constitutional rights covered under the tenth amendment? I don't think it does, and apparently neither do the individual States. I guess that is for the US Supreme Court to decide.

Additional clarification on the Carcieri v Kempthorne case arguement: The Carcieri v Kempthorne case before the Supreme Court in November is not challenging the Constitutionality of the Indian Reorganization Act. The Act is constitutional as passed by Congress but it does not apply in the eastern states. It only applies to Federal reservations which already existed in the West.

So back to this rumor about the Mashpee Tribe’s application…..I find it highly unlikely that the BIA will behave badly with this application. In fact, given the testimony they heard at the March 25th EIS scoping session, the complications surrounding the Mashpee Tribe’s application asking for two parcels of land that are 39 miles apart as an initial reservation – one parcel specifically slated for a mega-casino resort, and the already pending legal battles from other States, I think the BIA will be on it’s best behavior in regards to the Middleboro land decision. But if they chose to try and circumvent Federal laws, we will be there to call them out on it. In a court of Law.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - The Declaration of Independence

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

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

America the Beautiful

Did you know that Gladys Kravitz has been blogging for an entire year now?! Gosh, time sure does fly when you’re fighting a mega-resort casino from being built in your community. Well, as I was reading her latest, she linked to an earlier blog of hers, Gladys Kravitz Goes to Raynham, and it reminded me of a question she posed while commenting on the highlights of her evening listening to the Chairman of the Casino Resort Advisory Committee (CRAC) try to assure the Raynham Board of Selectmen that Middleboro has everything under control, to which Selectman McKinnon replied:

“Son, I guess I just don’t understand why your town would…give up it’s own control, and chose to depend on the Tribe’s benevolence.”

Gladys goes on to pose the question that I have been pondering about since the day she posted this blog:

But it’s clear that this is one of those infinitesimally few things that Brian has no answer for. And I don’t have any profound wisdom to impart to help him understand. I mean, how do you explain America? -- (courtesy of Gladys Kravits – thank you Gladys!)

When she asked this, I couldn’t help but wonder….how do you explain America? Seriously, how does one explain a Country’s soul…it’s spirit and how the concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is the foundation on which this Country stands?

In the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers, ..”held certain truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” So is this how you describe America?

Many say that America is all about the American Dream…a term first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America written in 1931. In his book, he says, "The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

Many people seem to feel that the American Dream has become the pursuit of material prosperity because the more stuff you have, the happier you will be. . Yet others live the American Dream with less focus on financial gain and more emphasis on living a simple, fulfilling life that does not include living in the vicinity of a mega-casino resort on sovereign land, you know....a seperate country, like England.


Our Country could also be explained by our Flag, and what it stands for:


The 13 stripes in the American flag represent the original 13 colonies . The 50 stars represent the States and a new constellation, a new nation dedicated to the personal and religious liberty of mankind.

Red stripes proclaim the fearless courage and integrity of American men and boys and the self-sacrifice and devotion of American mothers and daughters. White stripes stand for liberty and equality for all. blue is the blue of heaven, loyalty, and faith.



But what does that mean to me, to you, to anyone….heck, I couldn’t even explain America to myself when I read the question, at least not without taking the time to really think about it. I really find this to be a fundamentally profound question and it really got me thinking a lot about it off and on for the past several weeks. America means so many things to so many people….how does one explain that?

So, in the spirit of Independence Day, I have decided to go out and find the answer to Gladys’ super important question, but wanted to keep it simple, and honest, and true. So I asked some friends and family one simple question….

If you had to describe America in three words, what would those words be?

Here is some feedback to my question. No editing....only the freedom of my family and friends expressing their right to free speech...ain't this an awesome country?

Home, Family, Liberty

GENEROUS CARING GREAT

LAND OF HOPE.

Beware of Bush

Corrupt government officials

No educational investment

Arrogant political leaders

Too much violence

Life, Liberty, Happiness

Freedom to Blog!

Freedom, Rights, Independence

beautiful,free and home

Frustrated, Worried And, I am very, very confused that the “ US ” could be in such trouble/need from more than one area.

Freedom to be

opportunity to excell

Freedom, choice, liberty

But by far, the one answer that left me speechless came from no other than my blogger friend herself, Gladys Kravitz:

“Never Give Up”


...and to me....the three words America the Beautiful says it all.




So, how would you describe America in three words?




“Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country." - Calvin Coolidge, 29th President of the United States of America

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,that we shall pay any price,bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th president of the United States of America


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