Loopholes R Us

It becomes increasingly clear that legislation affecting tribal gaming and casinos is some of the worst ever written. The story below is from the Boston Globe, and details how the tribal gaming lobby keeps these gaping holes wide open. (Click here to see Globe Graphic Distribution of Mohegan Sun Profits)

Casino jackpot went to investors
By Sean P. Murphy
Globe Staff / December 16, 2007

A coterie of casino executives who helped the Mohegan of Connecticut build one of the most successful tribal casinos in the world has been paid $369 million in resort and casino proceeds during the last six years - slightly more than has been received by the entire 1,700-member tribe.

It is the kind of bonanza that was supposed to be prohibited by the federal Indian Gaming Act when it was passed 20 years ago, say some US senators and federal regulators.

But the Mohegan Sun investors - led by Sol Kerzner and Len Wolman - found legal ways around provisions intended to make sure most casino benefits went primarily to tribes. And those loopholes remain open after a massive lobbying blitz by the $25 billion Indian gaming industry.

Since 2001, the industry and its lobbyists have repeatedly defeated efforts to tighten rules and increase transparency. In the industry's latest victory, it crushed an Indian Gaming Act amendment championed in 2006 by Senator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona. McCain's bill would have prevented huge payouts like those received by Kerzner and Wolman. McCain has said the defeat of his bill was a triumph for special interests.

"Their lobbyists are very powerful, and they're pretty hard to fight," McCain said in an interview last month. "I was very disappointed."

That lobbying success now is reverberating in Massachusetts, where Kerzner and Wolman have most recently set their sights on a tract of land in Middleborough. Just six months after McCain's bill was defeated, Kerzner and Wolman signed a deal with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe to build a $1 billion casino on the rural site.

That contract is subject to the same rules that allowed Kerzner and Wolman to make more money than the Mohegan tribe in recent years. Even Governor Deval Patrick has been unable to find out - despite requests for information - how much Kerzner, Wolman, and other investors in the Middleborough casino negotiations would get in the deal.

"We believe strongly that the financial deal between the tribe and their backers should be made public," said Joseph Landolfi, a spokesman for Patrick, who is interested in courting the developers and tribe if he wins legislative approval of his plan for three state-licensed casinos.

Kerzner and Wolman declined to be interviewed. A lawyer for their partnership - known as Trading Cove - in response to written questions from the Globe, said that the developers took "significant risks" in its investments in the Mohegan casino that justified the returns Trading Cove received. The Mohegan tribe owns all the equity in the casino, said Philip C. Korologos, the lawyer, so the financial benefit to the tribe will "be multiples of any amounts that Trading Cove has received.

But some Mohegan tribal members are resentful of the Trading Cove deal.

"It was supposed to be for the tribe, not outsiders," Carlisle Fowler, the Mohegan former tribal treasurer, said of Mohegan Sun in an interview last week.

And some Mashpee Wampanoag tribal members say they are suspicious about the deal their leaders have struck with the same investors in Middleborough - a deal they have not been shown. Documents filed with the tribe's pending federal application for reservation status at the site do not disclose financial terms.

"They don't let us see anything," said Michelle Fernandes, a member of the tribe. "It's a big secret."

Frank Sinatra once described Kerzner as "the world's best saloon keeper." The occasion was the opening of Sun City, the casino and resort developed by Kerzner in South Africa. One of the world's most successful casino moguls, Kerzner also developed the Atlantis resort in The Bahamas.

He landed in Montville, Conn., in 1994, enticed there by Wolman, a fellow South African then managing a Days Inn hotel in nearby Mystic. Wolman had pieced together a deal that he hoped would rival the already up-and-running Foxwoods casino, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Indians and an instant success when it opened in 1992.

At the time, investors in Indian casinos received compensation by managing the facilities until tribes gained enough experience to do so themselves. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed by Congress in 1988, the maximum pay the investors could receive was 30 percent of gambling profits annually for five years. After that, investors could get no further payments.

Mohegan Sun opened in 1996, the second casino in New England. In its first full year of operation, Mohegan Sun had $611 million in gross revenues. Its immediate success spurred a vast expansion, including development of a 1,200-room luxury hotel, overseen by Trading Cove and completed in 2002.

By then, Trading Cove had negotiated an expanded contract. The new agreement was based on gross revenue, rather than net revenue: It not only gave Trading Cove a nickel of every dollar spent at Mohegan Sun's multiple casinos, but also on all spending by patrons at the hotel, restaurants, shops, and auditorium. The contract spans 2000 to 2015.

The National Indian Gaming Commission called the amount of money the Mohegan tribe was promising to pay Trading Cove "egregious," and clearly above the legal limit, but concluded in 1998 it lacked the authority to stop the new contract.

That's because, under a loophole in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, investors could avoid caps on their returns by calling their deals anything other than a management contract, usually a consulting contract.

Currently, the annual payment to Trading Cove from the Mohegan Sun is about $75 million. Over the last six fiscal years, Trading Cove received $368.9 million, compared with $367.5 million in casino profits distributed to the tribe.


By the time the agreement expires in 2015, total receipts for Trading Cove may exceed $1 billion, according to financial projections.

Mohegan tribal chairman Bruce "Two Dogs" Bozsum last week said he was not familiar with the deal made by his predecessors, one in which - according to public documents - Trading Cove put about $10 million into the original venture and provided a guarantee for about $90 million in bonds sold on Wall Street. Bozsum did, however, say that Trading Cove took a risk in backing the tribe in the 1990s.

In the late 1990s, there were 297 Indian tribes in the casino or bingo business nationally, taking in $8.4 billion a year. But the industry exploded, fueled in part by investors growing confidence they could outflank federal regulators to reap big profits. Today there are 419 tribes, doing more $26 billion a year in business.

And the vast majority of deals between investors and tribe are now made as something other than management contracts and therefore outside of regulatory review, according to the US Department of Interior's Inspector General.

As the industry grew, so have the sums that it spends on lobbyists in Washington, especially lobbyists who are former staffers for key regulatory agencies, and, in the case of Trading Cove, at least one lobbyist connected to Massachusetts politicians.

The Indian casino industry has spent $100 million for lobbying since 2001, according to the Center for Responsible Politics, a public interest group that compiles lobbying and campaign contribution data.

Trading Cove has spent almost $1 million since 2002 for lobbyists, including $495,000 since 2003 for lobbyist A. Bradford Card, managing partner of Dutko Worldwide. Card is the brother of Andrew Card, the former Bush administration White House chief of staff who in the 1980s served in the Massachusetts Legislature before running unsuccessfully for governor. When asked about his role, Card asked for written questions, but never responded to them.

Trading Cove is also represented by lobbyist Virginia Boylan, a former counsel to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and now a partner at Drinker Biddle, another powerful firm. Trading Cove fees to Boylan's firm have totaled $460,000 since 2002.

In the last three years, the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe spent $520,000 for Washington lobbyists. Among them is Steven C. Schwadron, former chief of staff to US Representative William D. Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts. Most of the lobbying was connected to winning federal recognition for the tribe, but now includes "legislation and policies relevant to newly recognized tribes," Senate records say.

Trading Cove, through its lawyer, Korologos, said its goal is to "continue to oppose in lawful and legitimate ways any legislation in Congress" that interfere with tribal rights.

Len Wolman and and his brother Mark receive about $10 million a year from Mohegan Sun, according to publicly available records.

By 2015, the Wolman brothers' receipts are projected to exceed $100 million each from the Mohegan deal, out of the projected $1 billion. Kerzner's company is expected to receive about $500 million.

Meanwhile, divided among its 1,700 members, the Mohegan tribe's current share of profits works out to about $38,000 a year each. The tribe declined to say how it distributes its earnings.

When the details of the Trading Cove's 15-year contract first emerged in 2001 in the Globe, McCain vowed changes.

A bill he introduced in 2005 would have made sure that outside investors be firmly subject to the 30 percent cap.

Dennis J. Whittlesey, a longtime Indian casino lawyer based in Washington, said McCain's bill was not well-received by casino executives.

"A number of major developers were extremely concerned and made substantial moves to oppose it," he said.

The McCain bill was voted out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in March 2006 with a unanimous recommendation for passage by the full Senate.

But it died two months later, with no further discussion.

Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, reported that seven senators had put anonymous holds on the bill, meaning a vote of 60 senators was required to release it.

Some federal regulators continue to press for reforms. Earl E. Devaney, the US Department of Interior's inspector general, said in an interview in Washington that an overhaul of the Indian Gaming Act is still needed.

Without reforms, he said, "investors are going to have the leverage to demand and get higher and higher amounts of casino profits.

"The return they get on their investment now is huge."

Lakotaland! Coming to a state near you...

...if you live in Nebraska, The Dakota, Wyoming or Montana. Apparently a break-away group of Lakotas have decided they are no longer a part of the United States. The story from Fox News.

Hat tip: Hawgamon

Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago
Thursday, December 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws. (ed - the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US... NOW.)

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.

This time it was the "wine" not the "whine"..

...for Mr. Sammy Sockpuppet, Sam Cohen. Maybe he just wanted to join the club and acquire a criminal record? Maybe it's a status thing on the reservation? After all, how many people can say they have an attorney that beat his wife out in front of the Chumash Casino. There was also ex-Chumash Chairman - Gilbert Cash, who tried to strangle his wife, so maybe it is the water? What a great group of role models these folks are for youngsters in the Santa Ynez Valley eh? These are the people the governor of California chooses to do business with. And Sam Cohen is the guy that shook his finger and lectured James Lynch about the Chumash, and attempted to lampoon Lynch's credentials. From the Santa Ynez Valley Journal:

Chumash attorney arrested for domestic violence
Archive » December 14, 2007

The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians’ attorney, Sam Cohen, and his wife were arrested at the Chumash Casino Dec. 12 after police responded to a domestic disturbance call. According to the county Sheriff’s department, Trina Cohen was arrested for being drunk in public, while Sam was arrested for domestic violence. Trina was taken to the Santa Barbara County Jail and Sam to an alternate holding facility. The couple was believed to have been attending an anniversary party for Chumash Magazine when they clashed over a social issue. Witnesses said they believed at least one of the Cohens was taken to a hospital for examination before being transported to jail.

(ed. - Bet you don't see THAT little tidbit of news in the Santa Barbara News Press)

Arnold Schwarzenegger? More like Benedict Arnold..

Two letters to the editor in Capitol Weekly, seem to summarize public sentiment (and frustration) about the state of affairs in government, from the local level to the governor himself.

Schwarzenegger’s statement in the letter to the editor below:

“the voters do not have jurisdiction over the agreement, because it was not legislation but a deal between two sovereign governments"

So because they are two sovereign governments - I guess the Governor is not in violation of the Brown Act. There is a word for what he is doing though. Treason.

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation."

Letters to the editor (of Capitol Weekly)
By Capitol Readers (published Thursday, November 29, 2007)

Dear Editor,

It is high time for elected officials to brush up on their oaths of office, take a U.S. Constitution refresher course and be reminded who they work for. Special interests seem to be garnering all the attention these days, but what about the People of California?

Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent filing in federal court, as reported in Capitol Weekly on Nov. 22, supporting the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ claims that “the voters do not have jurisdiction over the agreement, because it was not legislation but a deal between two sovereign governments,” is a stunning example of the arrogance of our governor.

Why would our governor subvert a vote by the people?

The backroom nature of these deals might have something to do with it. Agua Caliente Chairman Richard Milanovich finalized his compact with our governor at a Napa resort and had this to say about cutting his deal: “Governor Schwarzenegger, number one, is a businessman, and what we did was a business deal. He was smoking a cigar when we reached an agreement.”

Local and state governments are increasingly using government-to-government “privilege” to elude public involvement. This practice is an outright abuse of the intent of a federal directive that was given to federal branch agencies only, and growing legal opinion would argue that it violates the 14th Amendment securing equal protection of the law. Gambling compacts are not treaties. They are contracts between casino tribes and the People of California.

Here’s the refresher course for our elected officials. The first three words of the Constitution are “We the People.” There is no royalty claimed here. More concretely, the basic principle of government is that it derives its power from the consent of the governed. Don’t you need our vote to have our consent?

The governor’s attempt to keep these referendums from the voters only further erodes the ability to enforce our Constitutional contract with our government — the ultimate in political accountability.

Kathryn Bowen,
Santa Ynez

AND

Dear Editor,

On Nov. 22, James Lynch wrote a commentary challenging the legitimacy of the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians as a “federally recognized tribe” and its “reservation” as a properly recognized “federal reservation” (Capitol Weekly, Commentary).

Lynch’s article discusses one “tribe,” but in all probability many, if not most, of the casino “tribes” fall into this same category. They have been fabricated and engineered by greedy politicians and crafty attorneys. These politicians, our representative government, ignore the tremendous negative impact and prostitute the casino-hosting community for favors by the casino “tribes.”

In Santa Barbara County, they grovel. Just look at the recent resolutions by Assemblyman Pay-dro Nava and Third District Supervisor Crooks Firestone, passed without any opportunity for public comment, to get a taste for the backroom deals going on to cleverly market the Chumash Casino.

As our Legislature sells out its constituents for gambling dollars, it is also empowering these fabricated casino “tribes” to become more and more brazen in their demands to be treated as “sovereign nations” and “sovereign governments.” Politicians are loving this government-to-government deal-making with these tribal governments, as it is a means to circumvent public knowledge and participation.

This is happening all over the country. The few non-politicians in the public who believe there should be some accountability by our representative government watch this scam with dumbfounded amazement and fight with private lawsuits, petition signings and fund-raisers to protect the Constitution and the communities that they love so much.

And what do they get for their efforts? They are called racists for not agreeing with the expansion of these fabricated tribal governments functioning outside the U.S. Constitution and destroying their communities with their self-regulated gambling operations and unenforceable tribal-state gaming compacts.

Will the real representative please stand up and do something?

Kathy Cleary,
Los Olivos

How bout a little cheese with that whine... Mr. Cohen Sock-Puppet?

When an attorney publishes a statement like...

"Let’s get one thing straight: The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is a federally recognized tribe that is listed in the Federal Register of the U.S. Department of the Interior. There’s no arguing that fact, and that should have been the end of it"

... I scratch my head. Anything can be argued and I thought attorneys do (and know) that best. Besides, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. Unlike Indian aristocracies, we here in the United States value our free speech, and our right to question anything we damn well please.

Hmmm.. then i read a little further. Is "Mr. Cohen" REALLY a member of the tribe?:

"we were surprised by Lynch’s ridiculous accusations regarding the validity of our tribe"

Sounds to me like Vincent Armenta has a little Sammy Sockpuppet.

The "author" also claims Mr. Lynch was paid. I would like to see the receipt for that. Again I doubt a real attorney would say this kind of thing without proof.

The "author" makes a big deal out of Mr. Lynch having worked with heating equipment and attempts to quip:

"Is their next step hiring Larry the Cable Guy to provide his insights on the economic impact of Indian gaming? "

Well, if thats silly, how about hiring a welder to run a Las Vegas style casino Mr. Arementa? errr... Mr. Sammy Sockpuppet?

If the "author" really wanted to prove their point why not dispense with this pithy rebuttal and just link to scans of the 'proof' documents themselves?

Here it is from Capitol Weekly:

Historical record confirms legitimacy of Santa Ynez Chumash
By Sam Cohen (published Thursday, November 29, 2007)

To read James Lynch’s op-ed (“The Santa Ynez Chumash: A Question of Legitimacy”) in last week’s Capitol Weekly, one would think that there are questions surrounding the Santa Ynez Chumash tribe. There aren’t.

Let’s get one thing straight: The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is a federally recognized tribe that is listed in the Federal Register of the U.S. Department of the Interior. There’s no arguing that fact, and that should have been the end of it. But for the tribal opponents in the Santa Ynez Valley, facts have never gotten in the way of creating their own version of the truth.

Lynch’s op-ed represents only the latest in a long history of attacks against the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians by a small group of tribal opponents in the Santa Ynez Valley.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to pick up a newspaper and read ludicrous claims from our tribal opponents. The vast majority of their ridiculous assertions are not even worthy of a response, including Lynch’s op-ed. It was riddled with so many factual inaccuracies that we wondered if we were reading an excerpt from a fictional novel.

While our first inclination was to ignore Lynch’s op-ed, we were bothered by the fact that an individual could make such outlandish claims and pass them off as the truth. We wondered how such preposterous allegations would make it past Capitol Weekly’s editorial standards.

Lynch mentions an 1899 court case (which was actually first filed in 1897), but he apparently failed to read the decision and order of the Court from March 31, 1906 (The Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey vs. Salamon Cota, et al), both recognizing the Santa Ynez Indians and finding that the tribe’s existence predates the acquisition of the California territory by the United States in 1846. It also identifies the Zanja De Cota Creek reservation of the tribe.

Because there is such a wealth of well-researched historical documentation about the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and about the Santa Ynez Reservation, we were surprised by Lynch’s ridiculous accusations regarding the validity of our tribe.

In addition, his personal attacks on Chairman Armenta and his family were completely unnecessary. Frankly, we questioned the decision of Capitol Weekly’s editors to allow such statements to remain in Lynch’s op-ed.

Unfortunately, what Capitol Weekly editors may not know is that an entirely new cottage industry has surfaced within the tribal gaming industry. It’s an industry in which tribal opponents create their own experts and make up their own facts. Want to question a tribe’s very existence? Contact an individual who will make whatever disparaging comments you want against a tribe — for a fee.

Many of the so-called experts who travel the circuit are not recognized as legitimate in the real world. Take Lynch, for example. He has worked on a handful of fee-for-service projects that have consistently resulted in anti-tribal opinions. In a court document under sworn testimony, Lynch admitted that he has never concluded that any Indian tribe he investigated met the standards for federal acknowledgement.

With his anti-tribal track record and hired gun status, he was engaged by POLO/POSY, a tribal opposition group in Santa Ynez Valley that has fought everything from the tribe’s liquor license application (in the middle of wine country where more than 60 wineries reside) to the tribe’s plans to build a Chumash cultural museum.

For us, Lynch’s credibility is at the core of this latest attack from these tribal opponents. Under sworn testimony in 2006 (pages 481 and 483 of State of New York vs. Shinnecock Indian Nation), Lynch admits that he has no training in land titles or surveying and has spent the majority of his career as a heating equipment salesperson.

We certainly have no beef with heating equipment salespeople. But it’s highly doubtful that they possess the historical background and formal training required to research a topic as complex as colonial history. We have reviewed court documents in which Lynch provided so-called expert testimony, and he withered under cross-examination on questions pertaining to his credibility.

In his op-ed, Lynch claims that all POLO/POSY are asking for are accurate and honest answers to fair, legitimate questions. If that’s the case, why did they feel the need to employ a hired gun to spew out information that is not based on reality?

We have, in fact, answered any number of questions from POLO/POSY over the years, but they continue to search for answers that only fit their own distorted illusions. Truth, apparently, is not a requirement for them.

After all the shenanigans that these tribal opponents have been involved with lately, we have to wonder what’s next on their agenda. They hired a heating equipment salesperson to research the tribe’s history. Is their next step hiring Larry the Cable Guy to provide his insights on the economic impact of Indian gaming?

Non-Tribe wants casino on non-tribal lands.. sound familiar?

Once again we have a group of people trying to re-tell historical records to twist things to their advantage. The difference in this case is that the surrounding community is doing their homework first. Then of course you hear the usual disrespect.. hate... racism against indians. The priceless quote from this article by Rhonda Morningstar Pope in the Sacramento Bee:

"Pope said Beckham misunderstands the Indian way if he bases his conclusions on the absence of written records. Such formalized activities were not the tradition of Indians."

But running a large gambling casino and bilking people out of their money IS in the tradition of Indians... alrighty then. Got it. Absolutely ludicrous.

Amador ups ante against Ione casino plan
County's federal suit says the tribe has no historic presence on the land.
By David Whitney - dwhitney@mcclatchydc.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, November 25, 2007

WASHINGTON – Amador County has stepped up its legal fight to stop a tiny Ione Indian tribe from building a large casino on a narrow strip of land in the rural county, about 40 miles southeast of Sacramento.

In a recent federal court filing that challenges a casino development effort by the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, the county says it has uncovered new information showing "the total lack of any historical tribal presence on the Rancheria by this tribe."

Tribal chairwoman Rhonda Morningstar Pope condemned the statement, saying, "I take great offense to this idea that we are not a tribe."

"This is the county looking for anything they can to get accomplished what they need," Pope said. "They are doing it in a way that is completely disrespectful to not only my band but to other natives. It's a shame that we even have to stand up and justify that we are Indian, that we are a tribe and that we existed."

The county has challenged the casino plans in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The National Indian Gaming Commission has said tribal members have continuously occupied land known as Buena Vista since 1905. In 1927, the federal government purchased a 67 1/2-acre site for Pope's great-grandfather, a Me-Wuk laborer named Louie Oliver; his wife, Annie; and their four children, Lucile, Eleanor, Enos and Marie.

But the county claims the Buena Vista Rancheria property was never an Indian reservation and therefore the Interior Department should not have approved a state compact in 2004 that qualified it for a casino. It has asked U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts to add its new contention to its lawsuit against the department.

The county also claims that even if the land is determined to have reservation status, the Buena Vista Rancheria band has no right to build the casino because it was never a tribe there.

The NIGC says the tribe has been a federally recognized Indian tribe since 1985.

The county's allegations build a new layer in a case pending before Roberts for 18 months awaiting a decision on the Justice Department's motion to dismiss it.

The Justice Department objected to reopening the case now, giving Roberts another decision to render. But the county's attorney, Dennis Whittlesey, said that if Roberts does not permit the case to be expanded, the county will file a separate lawsuit.

Buena Vista is proposing a Las Vegas-style casino with 2,000 slot machines and 80 gambling tables on a strip of land that's less than 200 yards wide but a mile long. The development also would include a hotel complex and a parking structure for as many as 4,000 cars.

Amador County contends that the proposed development on Coal Mine Road near Highway 88 would create a traffic nightmare and overwhelm county services.

The county's new arguments are based on research conducted by Stephen Beckham, a scholar and author on American Indians in the West and a history professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Ore.

While the Rancheria's tribal chairwoman appears to be a direct descendent of the Oliver family that settled on the property, Beckham said he could find no evidence that the small family of mixed Indian heritage ever operated as a tribe.

Beckham said he searched Bureau of Indian Affairs and National Archives records "for days and days" for anything that would show tribal activities. None was found.

He also talked to a stepson who lived on the property from the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s.

"My particular reason for interviewing him was to ascertain whether there was a tribe functioning there," Beckham said. "He said there was nothing. There were no meetings. There are no minutes. There is just not a record of tribal activity nor their treatment of the property as a reservation."

Pope said Beckham misunderstands the Indian way if he bases his conclusions on the absence of written records. Such formalized activities were not the tradition of Indians.

"Buena Vista is one of the most documented places in California," she said. "We had three roundhouses there. That place was the central capital of ceremonialism. There were great medicine people. There were dancers. There were doctors. This is so disrespectful that this is even being brought up."

Pope has previously produced documents for The Bee, including a court ruling involving child support and Social Security records, that identify her as the daughter of Jesse Pope, a Me-Wuk who grew up on Buena Vista land and was buried in the Buena Vista cemetery. In addition, his death certificate, court probate records and tribal rosters from national archives show that Jesse Pope was the son of Eleanor Oliver and the grandson of Louie Oliver.

Beckham's report, which he described as a tragic history of the Oliver family, has not been released by the county.

In its court filing, the county says it is not enough that the Buena Vista property was found by the National Indian Gaming Commission in 2005 to be reservation lands suitable for a casino.

"Newly discovered evidence demonstrates that no tribe, including this tribe, resided on the lands comprising the Rancheria at any time," the county states.

Don't hold your breath...

...if you think you will see the following information from the Capitol Weekly any time soon in the local MSM (main stream media). KEYT, The News Press and the (so-called) Independent are way too addicted to the advertising dollars received from the Chumash Casino to print anything that is not utterly positive about their gambling operation. As this information about the tribe comes to the surface all you are likely to see in local media are puff pieces on how wonderful and dandy the casino is for the community and environment. Basically when you buy a local 'news' paper you are paying to read the opinions of that newspapers advertisers. Same thing for local TV 'news'. Whores.

The Santa Ynez Chumash: A question of legitimacy
By James Lynch (published Thursday, November 22, 2007)

In a recent commentary published by Capitol Weekly (November 1, 2007, “Gonzo journalism gone wild”), Vincent Armenta, Chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians continued a litany of disparaging remarks concerning citizens groups and media outlets located in Los Olivos (POLO) and Santa Ynez (POSY), groups that have in the past questioned the Chairman’s leadership and tribal activities.

Behind all the comments and counter-comments made between the tribe and these two groups there is not only a question of distrust, but a core issue that centers upon the question of legitimacy. Myriad questions have arisen as to the legitimacy of the tribe, the legitimacy of the Santa Ynez reservation, and even the genealogical legitimacy of Chairman Armenta. We are confronted then, with three such core issues: tribe, reservation, and leadership. When these three issues are examined, we will be able to see why there is such a controversy.

First of all, there is the question of the legitimacy of the reservation. Chairman Armenta, in his May 2005 testimony presented to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee claimed that a reservation was established in 1901 for the Santa Ynez by the federal government. When the historical record is examined, we find this was not so.

In 1899, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the region bought suit against the Indian population living on the Church-owned lands at Santa Ynez. The Church, in its suit named five families who were the descendants of the original Santa Ynez Mission Indian population as defendants. In 1901, a settlement was agreed upon wherein the Church and a second property owner (Santa Ynez Land and Improvement Co.) agreed to convey the acreage in question to the Department of the Interior with certain stipulations, the principle one being that if the five families or their descendants ever abandon the tract, ownership would revert back to the owners. There were also other issues of residual rights. What is important also was the lands were being conveyed to the Interior Department, not to the tribe. The agreement was never put into effect due to title-related issues. The problem was still not resolved in 1940, when again the property-owners agree to “donate” the land to the government under a 1931 Indian donation Act.

Historical investigations into the resolution of this issue find no actions in the federal record that indicate that the federal government finally took ownership of the lands of the reservation. Yet we find in a 1967 document that the land is now a considered a reservation. Where is the documentation signifying that the United States took ownership of the reservation lands? Where is the documentation or announcement in the Federal Register declaring the existence of a Santa Ynez reservation? An additional question is thus raised. If the title to this land was assumed by the federal government as title-holder, how can these lands be declared to be “in trust”, if the Tribe never had ownership title to be placed into federal trust to begin with?

Our second question concerns the legitimacy of the tribe itself. Both the tribe and the current Bureau of Indian Affairs leadership claim that the Santa Ynez received federal recognition as an Indian tribe by virtue of the 1891 Mission Indian Relief Act. Yet when the congressional record of the Act is researched, we find a listing of the names of the Mission Indian bands that were to come under this Act. The Santa Ynez was not listed among them. Further investigation reveals no subsequent amendment or specific legislation that places the Santa Ynez band under this Act. There were no subsequent Acts by Congress recognizing the Santa Ynez as a tribe nor were their any administrative acts by the Bureau of Indian Affairs bestowing such recognition. In 1964 the Santa Ynez voted to come under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. This vote would or should have declared invalid in that the band did not meet the qualifications or requirements specified in the Act to be eligible to come under its auspices (residing upon a reservation for one). Thus there is no record of the Santa Ynez Chumash ever having been federally recognized as a tribe nor was such an announcement ever published by the federal government.

Additionally, none of the current membership of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians can trace their genealogies back to the five families present on the church-owned lands at Santa Ynez in 1901. As a matter of fact, none of the current membership can trace their ancestry back to the Santa Ynez band prior to 1940. Thus the result was a tribal constitution written in 1964 which required that the members of the tribe need only prove their Santa Ynez ancestry back to 1940. Bureau of Indian Affairs documents, census’s as well as federal census records from 1910-1930 described this post 1910 population as being Mexican, Shoshone, and from Senora (the documents do not tell us whether they meant Senora in Mexico or from the Senora Mission Band in Arizona)

Third, there is the question of Chairman Armenta. Vincent Armenta is the son of Manuel Armenta and his wife of German descent, Iona (Selig) Armenta. Manuel’s father was a “Spanish-Mexican” Loreto Armenta. His mother was Florencia (Pina) Armenta.

Florencia according to census records was listed as having 1/4 Indian blood in 1910. She was the daughter of Jose Deserderio who was born in 1866 at Purisima. Her mother Maria Antonia Pena was from Senora (Arizona or Mexico?). Maria was the daughter of a Maria Solares and a man of unknown ethnicity named Aguirres. None of these descent lines can be traced back to any of the five families so-named by the Catholic Church in 1901 as being the descendants of the Santa Ynez Indian community at Mission Santa Ynez. According to a Bureau of Indian Affairs census Vincent Armenta’s family did not move onto the Santa Ynez reservation until 1940.

Is it no wonder that residents of Los Olivos and Santa Ynez question the legitimacy of the current Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, its leadership, and by extension the legitimacy of their gaming facility established under the provisions of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and act intended for federally-recognized Indian tribes, residing upon federally established Indian reservations whose lands are held in-trust by the federal government. All POLO and POSY are asking for are accurate and honest answers to fair, legitimate questions.

So there you have it - the chumash casino is on non tribal land, owned by a non-tribe - run by an man of german/mexican descent. Isn't that just terrific.

Previously at tribal watch:
Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!
SY Valley's Journal

Arrogance, thy name is Pedro Nava

Once again I find myself carefully inspecting the snail mail I receive, and okay! Here's one letter addressed to me.. and YES! It does stipulate U.S.A.!! Wow, am I relieved! After reading a couple of editorials over at the Santa Ynez Valley Journal I was starting to think I was in another country... Venezuela perhaps? Mr. Nava does not seem to have time for constituents that don't throw money at him. He has informed Valley residents that he does not have time to attend a town meeting to answer community questions - but I see he does have time to give his friends and paying constituents - The Chumash Casino - a nice green environmental award. Maybe folks, what he is trying to say is 'hit the tip jar', and once there are several thousands in there - it will be good enough for him to show. And here I was thinking regardless of who got you elected into office, once there - you represent all the people in your district. Silly me.


Editorial From The Santa Ynez Valley Journal:
By Edmond Jacoby, Journal Editor

Last month, a group of concerned constituents in Nava’s 35th Assembly District sought his attention, asking that he confer with them and their neighbors — also Nava’s constituents — about the strange ways in which strings were pulled by unseen hands to memorialize something by renaming a feature of the constituents’ back yard at the behest of someone who lived half way across the state. Not only were the constituents not asked what they thought of the idea, they weren’t even told that it was being considered.

Nava feigned ignorance of the string pulling, but as a member of one of the assembly committees that debated the measure, and as chairman of another, his claim that he had no idea what was happening is hardly credible. As his constituents’ representative, he had a duty to know what was being planned for the district, and a duty to inform the people who live there. He confesses that he did not perform the first duty, and he dismisses the second as unimportant.

Being an assemblyman is a little bit like being a lawyer, in that an assemblyman represents his constituents somewhat like a lawyer represents clients. Nava surely understands this, because he used to be a lawyer.

Most people, Nava included, would fire any lawyer who failed in his duty to represent a client and who then refused to meet with the client to talk about that failure.

But Nava, upon receiving a written invitation to address his constituents at a town hall meeting, dismissed his constituents’ invitation out of hand, saying in a letter dated Nov. 1, “I am unable to commit to any town hall meeting due to scheduling commitments.” In other words, he doesn’t have time to talk to the people he works for about the job he’s doing — or not doing — for them. He justified having such an inflexible schedule by saying he heard the governor calling him.

That is arrogance, promoted to such heights that it makes Nava incompetent to represent his district. Political power and deal making have so gone to his head that he is no longer suited to hold office — any office. And he told you so himself when he signed that letter to the River Committee.



In case anyone needs a reminder, Mr. Nava has accepted at least in $6,400 in donations from the Chumash.
He is also the politician who had two local men investigated by law enforcement, who simply had the temerity to suggest to him that people in the valley were unhappy with the re-naming of Highway 154.

It's about the casino, stupid!

In rebuttal to Vincent Armenta's article in Capitol Weekly, a Santa Ynez resident says it clearly enough that even Mr. Armenta should understand. It's not about race hatred. (How can it be about "race" when most people have potted plants that are more "Indian" than the "Chumash"?) According to Vincent however people like Ms. Bowen here are full of hatred and jealousy, and have no business stating their opinion, she's just another whacko, gonzo, hater.

“Hate groups” or average citizens?
By Kathryn Bowen (published Thursday, November 08, 2007)

I am a 43-year-old mother of two. I have a family, a job, a home, I vote and I pay my taxes.

In the year 2000, a 260,000 square foot casino gets built in the heart of our rural community in Santa Ynez Valley (Population 22,000) less than a mile from four elementary schools and our high school with little to no input from the public. In fact, the mere questioning of the size and scope of the project brought immediate and brutal allegations of racism among other epithets from tribal Chairman, Vincent Armenta and tribal spokeswoman Frances Snyder.

Fast forward 7 years. Not much has changed. Screaming racism or “hate” as Chairman Armenta did in his November 1 “Gonzo journalism gone wild” commentary in Capitol Weekly is far easier than to address the real issues of land use, regulatory paralysis, the loss of representative government and the outright abuse of federal law.

Slowly our rights as a community have disappeared as elected officials continue to turn their backs on the people that elected them to office and open their pocket books to big gambling interests. Unlike much of the legalized gambling spreading like a cancer across this country, our casino along with 390 other tribal casinos nationwide are non-transparent, government sponsored, cash printing machines. Casino tribes are allowed to rely on services and infrastructure provided by the hosting community, but the community in turn cannot impose its regulatory system or property taxes for reimbursement because it is perceived as impeding on their sovereignty.

Let’s just be very clear. Casino tribes are not subject to the same laws or taxes as any other business in this country, are not accountable to host communities, not accountable to their own tribal members and if four casino tribes have their way come February, not accountable to the California taxpayer either. Yet, taxpayers are expected to subsidize a $27 billion and growing industry. Shall we dump the tea in the harbor one more time?

These issues are serious enough but just the tip of the iceberg. The more global issues are still submerged under the surface and considering the exhaustive list of related cases before our federal courts, is about to erupt.

Bottom Line: The American taxpayer and the growing number of disenrolled tribal members have become collateral damage to our government in a disastrous experiment that began with a train called the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and given “run away status” when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. Promoting inequality and separatism through granting gambling monopolies and allowing tens of thousands of acres to be placed into federal trust status to expand “sovereign” tribal territories within our borders because of past persecution is misguided at best and at worst will undue the constitutional protections secured to all people, tribal and non-tribal.

All we have requested from the press is to report the facts without bowing down to intimidation methods or multi-millions of dollars of casino advertising revenue. Nancy Crawford-Hall of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal has done both for our community. Giving Chairman Armenta space to spew such hateful and divisive remarks without having to address the real issues illustrates the kind of intimidation host communities have put up with for years.

Since when did taxpaying, law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to question what our government is doing become the enemy and labeled “hate groups” for challenging flawed federal laws that are weakening a democratic form of government?

Worldwide, casinos are being shut down by the thousands due to the economic and social strain they produce. So why is it considered “hate” when we challenge tribes and our government in their partnered effort to promote gambling as “easy money” when taxpayers are going to be the ones footing a very expensive bill when the party is over and the hangover begins? Why can we not question the Governor for signing every taxpaying citizen on to this lie of free money when he can privately negotiate deals excluding the host communities that are affected the most?

We challenge the Governor and the legislators on the false promise of growing revenue for the state. Where is the close to $1 billion Governor Schwarzenegger promised from his renegotiated 2004 compacts? He has collected an anemic $27 million with costs to the state continuing to grow. Just one example: Governor Schwarzenegger recently took away $1.3 million our community was suppose to receive from the Special Distribution Fund (SDF) intended to minimally mitigate the impacts of the casino. Who is going to pay for this?

The myriad of constitutional issues along with the fallacy that gambling revenue with solve budgetary shortfalls and stimulate economic vitality in our state must be questioned. Hate isn’t the issue.


RELATED ARTICLES:
Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!
SY Valley's Journal

Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!

Mr. Armenta of the Chumash casino of Santa Ynez submitted this rebuttal to Capitol Weekly in response to their original article. Though he criticizes Ms. Halls's journalistic skills, I myself wonder why he would knock off the title of a soft porn movie to launch his diatribe. Perhaps he needs to look elsewhere for inspiration. Or maybe just pay better attention. It is not 'hate' to dislike having a casino in one's backyard Mr. Armenta. Nor is it 'hate' to want to limit casino expansion. The only ad hominem attacks I see in any of these articles are in your rebuttal Mr. Armenta. As for drama? This editorial is a splendid example! Congrats!

Gonzo Journalism gone wild
By Vincent Armenta (published Thursday, November 01, 2007)
Capitol Weekly's October 18, 2007, article, "Santa Ynez woman buys paper, covers tribal casino," painted a rosy picture of a local woman purchasing a newspaper. But like the Santa Ynez Valley Journal itself, the article didn't tell the whole story.

It's no secret that Nancy Crawford-Hall, the new owner of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal, is a longtime foe of our tribe, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. She has attended Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meetings to speak out against our tribe, participated with anti-Chumash hate groups in the community and has written many angry columns in her publication accusing the tribe of everything from paying off politicians to being parasites.

Since Crawford-Hall took over ownership of the Valley Journal, we have had the displeasure of seeing multiple rants against our tribe in her "newspaper" on a weekly basis. Clearly, she doesn't follow the principles of good journalism by bringing quality news reporting to the public. In fact, there's no pretense of journalism at all. If journalism's first obligation is to the truth, the Valley Journal's obligation is to sensationalism and propaganda.

The Valley Journal goes back in time to the media climate prior to the 20th Century where the media market was dominated by smaller newspapers and pamphleteers who usually had an overt and often radical agenda, with no presumption of balance or objectivity.

From our perspective, it appears that the Valley Journal is a publication that is designed for the sole purpose of promoting hate against the tribe by criticizing the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in every issue. The publication's motto might very well be: "All the Gossip That's Not Fit To Print."

Take, for example, Crawford-Hall's "expose" on the tribe's so-called plans to bring 5,000 more slot machines to our facility. She obtained copies of minutes of a tribal council meeting and printed excerpts, but didn't bother to paint the entire picture. We weren't planning to bring 5,000 more machines to our facility, and we haven't. Facts, apparently, aren't important to Crawford-Hall.

Instead, readers were treated to weekly updates of the "No More Slots" campaign in an attempt to cause panic and hysteria by predicting that the sky was falling. The tribal opponents established a Web site, collected signatures, had a town meeting, donned T-shirts with "No More Slots" slogans and marched around Sacramento carrying a Tupperware container filled with scraps of paper. Their campaign fizzled after much fanfare and, as we said all along, we didn't bring 5,000 more slots to the Valley.

Ex-employees of the Valley Journal, of which there are many, tell us of Crawford-Hall's tirades against any editor or reporter who tries to include anything that remotely resembles balanced reporting when it comes to matters concerning the tribe. [if you think those stories are bad you should hear what ex-casino employees have to say about YOU Vincent. I would invite them to post here but our 'family' rating would go right out the window.- ed] She recently fired a columnist who wrote an op-ed that was non-biased. Evidently, an opinion that didn't condemn the tribe didn't have a place in her paper.

Crawford-Hall claims that her paper is the only one printing the truth about the community. The reality is that the local media--print, television and radio--all uphold journalistic standards and run fair, balanced and truthful news on the community, including news on the tribe and our Chumash Casino Resort. Because the coverage is objective, the way journalism should be, Crawford-Hall doesn't like it.

We have battled the Crawford-Halls of our community for nearly a decade. It seems that the more successful our business enterprise, the angrier they become. They hold town hall meetings that a casual observer described as one long gripe session against the tribe. They circulate petitions that go nowhere. They become incensed by virtually everything our tribe does--including making donations to the community.

Crawford-Hall's purchase of the Valley Journal is not a testament to a community member buying a paper to create a community voice. It's a demonstration of what happens when a group of elitists have too much time and too much money.

In Capitol Weekly's article, Crawford-Hall says, "We are telling the stories that no one else will tell." One example might be the front page article she ran stating that Mars will be the brightest object in the night sky when it comes within 34,649,589 miles of Earth. Of course, the story, an urban legend, was a false chain e-mail and passed off as the truth. Like everything else in her paper, the article failed miserably when it comes to meeting basic journalistic standards.

At the end of the day, Crawford-Hall's publication is just another chapter to add to the legacy of the local extreme groups. More drama, more hate, and more fish wrap.

SY Valley's Journal

A few weeks ago at Capitol Weekly, this article appeared covering Nancy Crawford Hall's purchase of the local Santa Ynez paper, 'The Journal'. I am reposting it here along with the responses that have cropped up on the web regarding the original article.

Santa Ynez woman buys paper, covers tribal casino
By Malcolm Maclachlan (published Thursday, October 18, 2007)

Nancy Crawford Hall didn't like how her local newspapers were covering the nearby Chumash tribe and casino. So she did something that people have fantasized about for centuries: She bought her own newspaper.

Last October, she purchased a small monthly, the Santa Ynez Valley Journal. She turned it into a weekly and quickly began having her staff crank out stories that a spokeswoman for the Chumash has labeled "propaganda" and "conspiracy theory of the month."

"It's an interesting paper," said Frances Snyder, and tribal member and spokeswoman for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. "Frankly, every week I dread looking at it. All of the stories are inaccurate. All of the stories are biased."

Hall claimed that hers is the only paper printing the truth about the casino--and that the community has responded. The Journal had a circulation of 6,000 when she bought it, she said, but has since grown to 22,000. She said she started looking into buying a paper after years of the other local papers refusing to print anything critical about the tribe or the casino--even in their "letters to the editor" sections.

"I can't go anywhere in town without people saying 'thank you for the paper,'" Hall said. She added, "I think we've really hit a chord. We're telling the stories no one else will tell."

Hall pens a column each week called "On the Ranch." About every third or fourth column deals with the Chumash, she said. But the paper regularly covers the group, including printing numerous letters to the editor--including one by a disgruntled tribal member, Hall said, who asked that their name be withheld.

For many in Sacramento, the first they heard about the dispute between the Chumash and local activists came in the last few weeks when Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose, successfully carried a bill to rename a section of Highway 154 as the "Chumash Highway." This angered local anti-casino activists with groups such as No More Slots and Preservation of Santa Ynez. Hall said she has never belonged to any of the local anti-casino groups.

Snyder had harsh words for the activists who oppose the renaming of Highway 154. The route had long been used by the tribe, she said, and the naming followed all legal and Caltrans rules, she said.

"Is it named the Chumash Casino Highway? No," Snyder said. Nowhere in the regulations around naming a highway, she added, does it "say you need the permission of [anti] tribal hate groups."

While the Journal has weighed in on the Highway 154 renaming, the paper has focused more squarely on what they allege are the tribes plans to expand the casino. This past spring, the Journal printed that the tribe was in negotiations for 5,000 new slot machines, along with tribes such as Pechanga and Agua Caliente, that got amended compacts in August.

The Chumash responded by saying the article was inaccurate--a point they sought to emphasize with full-page ads in several competing papers. On April 18, the Journal responded by reprinted the minutes of Chumash Tribal meeting, along with a 4,000 word story titled "Tribal Chairman Claims 'Whackos,' Tribal Government Minutes Say Otherwise." This included a quote from tribal chairman, Vincent Armenta stating: "We met with the Governor's Office but there has been no progress yet. We are asking for 5,000 machines."

Jim Marino, a local attorney who sued the Chumash twice on behalf of former casino employees but got caught in the "catch 22" of trying to sue a sovereign tribal government, said the tribe got caught with their pants down. Many tribal members themselves are angry about the way the tribe is being run by chairman Vincent Armenta, he said, which explains the regular stream of internal tribal information that has been fed to the Journal.

"They said they weren't going to expand," Marino said. "We had the blueprints of exactly where they were going to put the slot machines."

"They quit calling us liars," Hall said of the exchange.

Not quite. Snyder said the minutes were used out of context. The same quote goes on to state than new slots would be 10 years off. The Chumash were invited to talks, she said, because they are a gaming member of the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, but declined to pursue expansion. Other tribal minutes would show this to be true, she said, but added that these documents are confidential.

The dispute between the tribe and locals goes back to the beginning of the tribal-gaming era. The Chumash were one of the first tribes to gain a gaming compact under then-Gov. Gray Davis.

The Chumash face something other largely rural tribes have not: an extremely well-funded opposition. The town of Santa Ynez, located 30 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, has median household income of $96,300, according to the 2000 census--a figure that precedes that advent of the casino. The statewide median income at the time was $53,600.

Some have far greater wealth than that, as well as long-term ties to the land. Hall declines to state how much she paid for the Journal, or how many horses and cows she has on the ranch her family has owned for four generations. But she owns a horse-show arena. Her great grandfather, John Vickers, was co-owner of one of the Channel Islands, Santa Rosa Island; the U.S. government bought it for $30 million in 1978.

"The other tribal opponents don't have these type of resources," Synder said. "They try really hard to look like they're not elitist. They don't represent the community."

Marino said that charges of elitism don't mean much when they're coming from a tribe that hands out $40,000 (Snyder refused to confirm this figure) in gaming money to each member every month--not to mention nearly $1 million in political donations since 2001, including $16,200 to Coto. He went on to say the tribe has used this power--and the tens of thousands they regularly spend on newspaper and television advertising--to crush any criticism in other newspapers in the area.
"It's the millions of dollars they spend plus the fear of being labeled a racist," Marino said.

Many of the comments about the tribe do have racial overtones, Synder said, especially those posted on blogs. The tribe is criticized essentially no matter what they do, she said, including when they gave $1 million to the local Cottage Hospital and $3 million to refurbish the athletic fields at Santa Ynez Valley High School.

As an entertainment venue, they do regularly advertise in the local press, she said, though not in the Journal. The real reason the opponents don't get coverage elsewhere, she said, is because their claims are inaccurate. Many writers in the area, such as Santa Barbara News-Press columnist Travis Armstrong and local blogger Rick Lee, have frequently written positive stories about the tribe.

In any case, Hall said the Journal is going to keep after the Chumash. All she ever wanted was a part in the debate, she said, and the paper has given her that in spades. She's looking at adding new staff and shining light elsewhere, as well.

"The phrase 'the power of the press' is really true," Hall said, then added, "There's a lot of sneaky stuff the county does."

The Rose Colored Glasses are OFF in Orange County

Too often we hear plaintive murmers about 'job creation' and 'economic boosting' by communities contemplating an indian casino in their midst. Not so in Orange County though, at least in Congressman John Campbell's office. From the California Republic.

Of Casinos and Indian Tribes
by John Campbell [congressman]
By now you may have heard that there are several groups trying to get federal recognition as the federally sanctioned Juaneno Indian Tribe in Orange County. It is very clear that the groups seeking recognition as this tribe are doing so because they intend to establish a casino in urban Orange County. I have a copy of a lobbying contract under which the lobbyists are paid only by a contingent fee of the "take" of the eventual casino. If there is no casino, they are working for free. Furthermore, the Orange County Register recently featured a story in which one of the tribe organizers, Joyce Stanfield Perry, says, “it is our inherent right to build any kind of economic development once we have a government-to-government relationship.” There has been talk of putting this casino in San Juan Capistrano or near Irvine's Great Park. The Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs is scheduled to decide whether to recognize this tribe in about 60 days. If they do achieve recognition technically they could establish a casino on any land they buy in Orange County, although they would have to get a gambling "compact" with the state.

I oppose the recognition of this tribe and I oppose a gambling casino in Orange County, or frankly any other urban area. Lest you think I am not consistent on this issue, while in the California State Legislature I aggressively opposed the establishment of what would have been the largest casino on earth for a roughly 20 member tribe that had been recognized in Berkley, California. We have been successful so far in stopping that one. Here is why I oppose these things:

1) Indian casino gambling was originally conceived in order to provide economic opportunity for big groups of largely full-blooded Indians who were poor and whose ancestral reservations were in remote areas with little economic opportunity. That has worked in many areas. Fine. But now you see a handful of professional people tracing small fractions of Indian ancestry, in urban areas where economic opportunity abounds wanting to become tribes so they can make tons of money on gambling. If they would agree to never have a casino, as a tribe in North Carolina recently agreed to do, then we would know that they were merely trying to preserve their cultural heritage. But the Juanenos are not doing that.

2) The federal tribal recognition process has existed for 30 years. Why has this tribal application only surfaced in the last 20 years or so? Perhaps because the availability of and profitability of casino gambling only came to California recently.

3) These are not tribes of thousands of people here. The people trying to establish these tribes usually number less than a dozen. I remember meeting once with a group of 6 trying to establish a tribe and a casino in downtown San Diego. So, we're supposed to grant gigantic casino rights so that 6 people can have economic opportunity?

4) Indian casinos are federally granted monopolies. You and I cannot open one to compete with the Juanenos if we wanted to. In an urban area, why not? They are also basically self-regulated in California so their profit margins are very high because of that lack of competition.

5) Casinos in urban areas are usually accompanied by increases in crime and spousal abuse and gambling addiction.

6) These things are hard to stop because they are very profitable that there is plenty of money to go around for lobbyists and cities and consultants and the only losers are the public.

For all these reasons I have introduced a bill to place a 25 year moratorium on Indian casinos for newly recognized tribes. This will preserve the tribal recognition process for those who truly desire to preserve their heritage, but it will stop the practice of setting up these monopoly casinos in urban areas for at least a while.

If you agree with this bill or that we should not have casinos in urban areas like Orange County, please e-mail me back so that I can show the Bureau of Indian Affairs the breadth of the opposition to this tribe's plans.

Members question tribe - and get kicked out...

...oh color me so surprised! To begin with it cannot be said there has been sufficient proof provided that any of the so-called tribal members are indeed the descendants they claim to be. That some of these so-called tribal member can decide 'who is' and 'who is not' is ironic and almost funny. Almost. It becomes alarming when you hear tales of dis-enrollment as the cure for anyone with the audacity to question tribal leadership or practices. It effectively gives casino tribes the ability to hide anything. Anything at all. From CNN:


Indian tribes expel members

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (AP) -- Dennis Champlain's grandfather helped win federal recognition for the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Champlain himself has danced in tribal powwows and teaches his children that they are Narragansetts.

Dennis Champlain and his extended family were removed from the rolls of the Narragansett Indian Tribe.

Yet the Narragansetts say he is no longer a member of the tribe.

Champlain and his extended family are among thousands of people removed from American Indian tribes in recent years, often amid tribal squabbles or when a casino comes to town. In Rhode Island, the Narragansetts' removal of about 140 of roughly 2,400 members has become an issue in Saturday's election for the tribe's chief sachem, or leader.

Tribal officials say they have the right to decide who is a member and to prevent fraud by people angling for a share of gambling money. But many of those kicked out complain they have little recourse to fight what amounts to an attack on their identity.

"We're in the process of a redefinition of tribal identity at its core," said David Wilkins, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota and a member of North Carolina's Lumbee Tribe. "It's ramping up in a way that's really quite frightening to a lot of Native people."

Wilkins traces most purges to four factors: internal political squabbles, stricter racial requirements for membership, punishment for gang or drug-related crime and, most often, during debates over sharing casino profits.

A 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said the federal government should not intervene in most tribal membership disputes, leaving appeals up to the tribes.

Tribal casinos generated $25 billion in revenue last year, according to the National Indian Gaming Commission. Tribes often split the profits by making payments to members. Fewer members can mean a larger paycheck for those left.

But that paycheck can lure people with dubious claims of ancestry. The Pechanga Band of California said it was deluged with membership claims after it opened its casino in 1995.

John Gomez Jr., 39, a Pechanga member since childhood, was kicked out in 2004. He said gambling profits were one factor: He lost free health care and a $15,000 monthly payment. But he said he and others had questioned leaders before a tribal election.

"I think a lot of it has to do with the money, but there's a lot of it that's also about the politics," said Gomez, who co-founded the American Indian Rights and Resources Organization, a group that lobbies against expelling tribe members.

The Pechanga council has said it cut members who should never have been let in.

It's not clear how many people have been removed from tribes in the last few years. There are 562 federally recognized tribes, and tribal governments are not required to report citizenship decisions. But the number is in the thousands.

Gomez's advocacy group counts at least 1,500 people ousted from 13 tribes in California.

In Michigan, the Saginaw Chippewa want to remove about a tenth of their 2,700 members due to rules that require them to be at least one-quarter Indian. Critics said it's an attempt to cut casino payments.

The Cherokee Nation voted in March to deny citizenship to an estimated 2,800 descendants of tribal slaves.

In the Narragansett election, Paulla Dove Jennings, a historian, is running an underdog campaign against the incumbent, Matthew Thomas, saying it is unfair to take people's identities as Narragansetts away.

The tribe began a review of its roster about three years ago amid a failed push to build a casino -- but there is a dispute over why. Thomas said a tribal assembly, similar to a town meeting, voted to verify all tribal membership before adding several children to the roster.

But Leslie Champlain, a cousin of Dennis Champlain, said she attended the meeting and believes the tribe did not approve an audit. She suspects tribal leadership wanted to root out dissent after her sister, a tribal councilwoman, demanded a detailed audit showing how the tribe spent millions of dollars, some of it from the gambling company Harrah's Entertainment Inc.

Thomas called Champlain's claim "ridiculous" and said he is bound by the decisions of the tribal assembly and cannot be held responsible for someone else's ancestry.

Members were asked to prove they descend from ancestors listed on an 1880 census using birth, death and marriage certificates. The Champlains had used other documents as recently as 1994. This time, it was not enough.

Dennis Champlain said he learned his family was kicked out by reading about it in a newspaper. Thomas said members can appeal to a tribal court, but the Champlains say no one ever told them how to appeal.

Dennis Champlain does not blame his fellow Narragansetts, but he calls the process unjust.

"It's not a matter of whether it's right or wrong," he said. "It's a matter of who has the power. The tribe has the power -- we don't."

"The Untouchables"

If you or I owned a pub or bar, and were careless by feeding our customers too much alcohol, you can bet at some point one of our patrons would end up in a serious auto accident, possibly causing great harm to others. You can also bet that we would be named as defendents in lawsuits as a reward for our carelessness. However, if you are a tribal casino your sovereign nation status protects you from any such legal action. (Yet as tribal members you are allowed to contribute money to US political campaigns and vote in US elections.) From the Tucson Citizen:

Plaintiffs suing tribes can't get day in court
GARY FIELDS
The Wall Street Journal

The collision jolted Gary Filer awake in the back seat. A second impact brought his minivan crashing to a halt against a highway barrier. Filer lay partially on the road, his legs trapped in the wreckage, listening to the whine of his dog, Sadie. "She worked her way out and crawled over and lay on my lap," he remembers.

The minivan, driven by Filer's wife, had been hit by a Cadillac Escalade traveling the wrong way down Interstate 10.
The driver had been drinking heavily at the Desert Diamond Casino, six miles away.

The impact killed Filer's wife. The lower portion of Filer's right leg was later amputated. Sadie was euthanized.

The wreck's legal consequences seemed clear. Douglas Levitski, the Escalade driver, had a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the Arizona limit when he slammed into the Filers' Grand Voyager just after midnight on July 3, 2004. He was later charged with second-degree murder.

The casino where Levitski was drinking seemed a good target for a lawsuit. Like many states, Arizona has a law that makes liable establishments and employees who serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated customers who then cause accidents.

But when Filer went to sue the casino in state court in Tucson, he quickly learned that the textbook on civil litigation doesn't apply on tribal land, or to tribal entities. Under federal law, tribes are considered sovereign nations and are immune from most lawsuits. The Desert Diamond Casino where Levitski got drunk is on the San Miguel Reservation of the Tohono O'odham Nation.

So even though the accident itself involved no tribal members and took place off the reservation, Filer's state civil suit seeking $2 million in damages from the tribal-owned casino was rejected.

Arizona's appeals court upheld the decision.

"This conclusion, we hasten to add, may be unsatisfactory to some and arguably divorced from the realities of the modern world," wrote Judge John Pelander in the opinion.

Ripped off on the Reservation

Reading the comments at the GMA site where this story originated, you get the feeling people are missing the point. The arguement of "Pay him! Don't pay him! " seems to be irrelevant. Because of sovereign nation status - the casino cannot be sued. Tribal members can vote in US elections, can sue US citizens in US courts of law, and casinos on reservations can operate as a foreign country without tariffs or taxes.

Man Sues Casino over $1.6 million 'Jackpot"
By JIM AVILA, BETH TRIBOLET, DONNA CHOI and SCOTT MICHELS
ABC News Law & Justice Unit
Oct. 25, 2007

For about an hour last August, Gary Hoffman was a very lucky man.

Hoffman was playing the nickel slot machines at the Sandia Resort and Casino on an Indian reservation in New Mexico when he appeared to hit the jackpot: the machine said he won nearly $1.6 million.

"I became ecstatic," he said.

But the ecstasy was short-lived. Hoffman says in a lawsuit filed earlier this year that Sandia refused to pay, claiming that the machine malfunctioned. Instead, he said, they gave him about $385 and a few free meals at the casino.


"I won money, fair and square, and I've been cheated out of my winnings," Hoffman told ABC News.

The casino says it's not responsible for what it describes as a computer error and says it offered Hoffman the maximum payout of $2,500 for that particular slot machine. But, a jury may never decide who is right. Lawyers told ABC News that gamblers like Hoffman may have little legal recourse against Native American casinos, which sometimes operate beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

'I Was a Winner'

Hoffman, a retired Albuquerque city employee, was playing a "Mystical Mermaid" slot machine on the morning of Aug. 16, 2006, when he thought he hit it big.

The nickel slot said he'd won $1,597,244.10. Patrons and casino employees came to congratulate him. He even got a marriage proposal, Hoffman said. But, soon he was asked to come to an executive conference room, where he says he was told the casino refused to pay.

A casino employee "became quite intimidating with me, pointed his finger in my face and said, 'You didn't win. We're not paying you any money. Do you understand what I'm telling you? You're not getting any money,'" Hoffman said.

A technician from the slot machine manufacturer arrived at the casino within the hour and the casino cordoned off the machine.

"I was a winner and I walked out empty handed," Hoffman said.

Computer Malfunction

A technical report said the slot machine's computer malfunctioned, and incorrectly made it appear as if Hoffman won more than the machine is able to pay out. The slot machine has a disclaimer that says it pays a maximum of $2,500 and warns that malfunctions void all winnings, said Paul Bardacke, Sandia's lawyer.

Sovereign Immunity

Regardless, a jury may never get chance to hear Hoffman's case. Native American tribes, as independent nations, have their own court systems and can be sued in state courts only under limited circumstances. New Mexico law generally does not allow tribes to be sued in a state court over a contract dispute, Kleiman said.

Hoffman's lawyers say they should be able to sue the tribe over what they call big business. "They spent millions of dollars getting these customers, these gamblers, to come in and gamble money, then when someone hits it big, they say, 'Sorry, we are not going to pay you," said Hoffman's lawyer, Sam Bregman. "The jury is going to be outraged by that."

READ IT ALL

Follow the Money

It sounds like a step in the right direction but I am not sure how practical it all is. Verifying where every dime comes from would be a problem. (I seem to remember recent contributions to Hillary Clinton from dubious sources - undocumented workers in a chinese restaurant making $1000 & $2000 campaign contributions.)

Casino bill targets big spenders
By Stephanie Vosk also by George Brennan
STAFF WRITERS October 21, 2007

Federal authorities have ordered the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council to turn over all information about contributions to political candidates and committees.

The request is part of a deepening probe into tribe finances in the wake of chairman Glenn Marshall's Aug. 27 resignation, according to documents obtained by the Times.

Just who is giving political contributions — both for and against — legalizing casino gaming in Massachusetts is also an issue expected to be spotlighted this year as legislators on Beacon Hill gear up for the casino debate.

When individuals give contributions to legislators, it is often hard to tell who is connected to casino interests. A state representative is expected to file a bill this year that would make it clear to the public who is donating money to support or defeat the casino effort and which politicians are getting the most money.

The Wampanoag tribe spurred the gambling debate back to the forefront since receiving federal recognition in the spring.

This winter the debate is expected to intensify as the Legislature begins to consider Gov. Deval Patrick's plan to allow three commercial, resort-style casinos, the licenses for which would be put out to bid. The state's two federally recognized tribes would be given preference for those licenses. The Mashpee Wampanoag want to build a $1 billion Indian casino in Middleboro.

Since Patrick's plan requires legislative approval, casino backers are likely to target members of the House where an uphill fight is expected. The bill is expected to easily pass the state Senate.

The tribe, backed by casino investors since 2000, and its supporters have donated as much as $85,000 to campaigns since 2003, according to state campaign finance records.

Only someone who knows the players, their families and associates, would be able to calculate the total contributions to tribe members, their associates and others who would benefit if casinos are legalized.

Bill to force disclosure

The bill state Rep. Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston, plans to file would force anyone connected with a casino — by ownership, employment or through family members — to disclose that interest when making a political contribution.

"The problem as I see it is not that any legislator is corrupt, but there could be a perception of whether they are making decisions based on their constituents' interest or the interests of a very powerful lobby," Loscocco said Friday.

Though campaign contributions are public record — and easily accessible online — it is not easy to discern the connection between a group of donors who want the same legislative outcome. Those connections are often masked by the names of family members and associates, with varying addresses and occupations.

In the case of the Mashpee Wampanoag, donations are in the names of tribal associates such as lobbyist Stephen Graham, tribal council spokesman Scott Ferson, tribal council attorney William McDermott, and lobbyists James Morris and Robert Quinn, who represent the tribe. The position of these donors is easily discerned.

But then there are donations from Paula Marshall, Alycia Marshall and Evamarie Kidwell — former tribal council chairman Marshall's wife and children.

"It shouldn't be as hard as it is to find the connections between special interests' campaign contributions and their sources," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause, a political watchdog group that supports campaign finance reform. "We need to have a better way of making all of this completely transparent."

Common Cause is considering whether to support Loscocco's bill.

"Certainly having more disclosure is important," Wilmot said. "Our initial concern is why this fight should be substantially more important than other fights."

It's not that casinos are the only special interest group that use campaign contributions to gain access to legislators, she said.

The amount of money gaming is expected to generate for the state — Patrick estimates $400 million a year for the three he's proposed — puts casinos in another league, Loscocco said.

A search of other contributions shows it's not just the tribe and their supporters whose connection to casino interests are unclear.

The Carney family, for instance, which owns and operates the Raynham-Taunton greyhound track, has tried for years to secure slot machines and is planning to bid for a casino license.

George, Christopher, Dennis, Heather, Kelly, Laetitia, Maura, Thomas, and Timothy Carney, all of whom are linked in some way to the greyhound park, have donated about $130,000 to state campaigns and committees since 2003, state campaign finance records show.

Christopher Carney alternately lists his occupation on his various campaign contributions as a self-employed attorney, the vice president of Carney Trucking, and the president of American Waste Services, among others, all while using the same Raynham PO box as his address. It is only after a more time-consuming analysis of the contributions that one finds Carney the track owner, Carney the attorney, Carney the trucking executive and Carney the waste services president are the same person.

Big names, big money

Some of the biggest names in casino gaming have either officially announced their intentions to bid on one of the three licenses the state would grant under the governor's proposed plan, or are part of the speculation.

"The problem is how we can get the best decisions out of our government, and that should never be based on how much money one side has over another," Wilmot said.

In Rhode Island last year, more than $10 million was spent on both sides of a referendum question that, if approved, would have allowed an Indian casino in West Warwick.

Among the biggest contributors of the anti-casino campaign were Sol Kerzner and Len Wolman, South African casino moguls who at that same time were inking a deal — worth hundreds of millions of dollars — with the Mashpee Wampanoag to build a casino in Middleboro. Kerzner and Wolman spent $2.6 million in an effort to also protect their investment in the Twin River racino — a race track with slot machines, in Lincoln, R.I.

Those contributions were made through a group called Save our State.

Loscocco said his bill would give voters confidence in the system and the debate.

"There's nothing like the bright light of disclosure to act as the best disinfectant," he said.