Something is rotten in the State of California

As the vote for propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 approaches - information is surfacing as to how these props will actually (not) benefit the state. Initially they seemed to be the silver bullet for the Governors budget crises, and as the hype grew - giving four casinos almost 20,000 more slot machines would do everything from pump millions into schools to cure arthritis! This of course was not being put out by researchers - it was being pumped by public relations specialists hired by the tribes. Careful scrutiny however reveals a different story, as seen in the SY Valley Journal. Something else to keep in mind: recent history has shown us that an Indian Casino can claim sovereign immunity at any time - and simply do not have to abide by any agreement they enter into.

CASINO REPORT
By India Allen, Staff Writer

With the California State budget still being negotiated and the 2006 Tribal Compacts awaiting approval by California voters in a slugfest characterized by claims from proponents that the compacts will guarantee additional funding for the state’s schools, a new study claims there is no direct connection between compact approvals and funding for public schools.

Strategic Education Services, a Sacramento based lobbying, consulting and advocacy firm, issued an Analysis of the 2006 Tribal Compact and Their Impact on Education Funding. Contrary to various pro-compact campaign advertisements that assert that compact approval will provide billions of dollars to California schools, the study not only claims there is no guarantee that money distributed by tribes from gambling operations will directly benefit California’s public education system, but also that even with extra money coming from Indian tribes as a result of compact approvals, the Governor and State Legislature will most likely distribute the extra money to other programs.

“If approved by voters under the false impression they are voting to ‘provide billions to California schools,’ these gambling compacts could further the misperception that schools are receiving adequate funding from gambling measures -- a measure that already plagues efforts to provide genuine revenue increases to California schools,” reads a statement in the analysis.

Because public school funding is issued and managed through Proposition 98, a school funding formula that derives money for schools through proceeds of taxes, such as property tax, the study further claims that since tribes are sovereign nations, the state cannot levee taxes on their economic ventures. Therefore, compact payments cannot be considered proceeds of taxes and would not be included in a public education funding calculations.

“All revenues from past compacts have been allocated to non-Proposition 98 expenditures,” the analysis states. “There is nothing in these compacts to suggest that such practices will be any different than current policy.”

Roger Salazar, media representative for Yes on 94, 95, 96 and 97, refutes the report’s findings, stating that since 40 percent of California’s general fund is required to go towards public education, an increase in money to the general fund would also increase the amount of money distributed to public education and other programs.

“Any time you put additional resources in the general fund it relieves all areas. I don’t see how adding more money into the general fund wouldn’t benefit schools,” he said. (ed~possibly because that is not your job? YOUR job Mr. Salazar is to sell it to the California voters - not point out the flaws eh?) “It benefits all state programs including schools. It’s a technical argument that Strategic Education Services are trying to make.

“We are not in a position to make the promise, but what we have said is that these agreements will allow $9 Billion over two decades to be applied to the California budget. We’re facing some very tough budget times, and what these tribes are trying to do is contribute to part of the solution.”

Though the Legislature can decide to apply extra money the state receives to education, it has a track record for only applying the minimum 40 percent to schools.

In May 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger added an additional $427 million to the public education fund, which was more than the minimum 40 percent, and the Legislature reduced the funding by that exact amount -- applying only the minimum 40 percent.

The analysis questions how funds from compact agreements would be guaranteed to benefit public education since the legislature historically has applied the minimum 40 percent to schools, regardless of budget revenues.

While Salazar acknowledges this fact, he remains optimistic that the additional money from compacts would be applied toward public education and other vital programs.

“The folks on the other side are trying to do everything they can to mislead the voters to make them think that the compacts will not help the budget,” he said. “While nothing in life is guaranteed, what is guaranteed is that the state will receive hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to help with its budget problems and fund vital services such as education, and that’s a good thing.” (ed~ such a telling statement~nothing in life is guaranteed, would that include even your "guarantee" Mr. Salazar?)

The Governors Office could not be reached for comment.

It is a whole new year...

...and it looks like we will be going into it minus a few "hoped for" casinos. It appears that the federal government is taking a fairly firm stand in denying tribes off-reservation casinos. Tough luck for three tribes in California near Barstow. How the mayor can feel 'disappointed' stretches one's imagination though. He has not realized that the feds just save his town. From the Desert Dispatch.

Federal government rejects tribes' casino plans
By Jason Smith, staff writer

BARSTOW — The plans of three Indian tribes to build off-reservation casinos in Barstow have been rejected by the federal government further stalling the projects over the objections of tribal and community leaders.

The Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno, Big Lagoon Rancheria and Chemehuevi tribes were sent letters from the Department of the Interior informing them that their applications to put land near Barstow into a federal trust, a step necessary to build casinos, had been rejected.

Barstow Mayor Lawrence Dale said he was disappointed by the ruling.

“You know, it’s aggravating to say the least. The city has worked for five years on this project in good faith. To have the Department of the Interior change the guidelines as we were approaching the finish line is unconscionable.” he said. “The ruling as far as I’m concerned is a slap in the face to the Governor, and a slug in the stomach to the people of Barstow.”

In similar, but separate letters to the tribes dated Jan 4., Carl Artman, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, acknowledged that the tribes would receive economic assistance from the development of a casino, but stated that benefits were outweighed by the drawbacks because the proposed sites were not within “a reasonable commuting distance” of the tribes’ reservations.

“(T)he negative impacts on reservation life could be considerable,” the letter stated. “The potential departure of a significant number of reservation residents and their families could have serious and far-reaching implications for the remaining tribal community and its continuity as a community.”

The Chemehuevi’s reservation in Havasu Lake is 135 miles away, the Los Coyotes reservation is 115 miles southwest of Barstow in Warner Springs. Big Lagoon’s reservation occupies an environmentally sensitive coastal lagoon in Humboldt county 550 miles to the north of the casino site.

Tom Shields project spokesman for BarWest Gaming, which proposes a dual casino project by the Los Coyotes and Big Lagoon tribes, objected to the commuting distance clause in the department’s decision.

“These rules are arbitrary from the Secretary and certainly will be challenged if not by the Los Coyotes then by other tribes,” he said. “There may be a class action suit here.”

Shields said that the company stands behind its Barstow proposal and along with the Los Coyotes tribe, is negotiating with the governor’s office for a revised casino agreement. He said that although no decision has been made, the tribe can resubmit its land to trust application with additional information, appeal the ruling to the department, or file a lawsuit.

Shields rejected the idea that the development of a Barstow casino would negatively affect life on the reservation.

“(The Secretary) is basically saying the tribes are better off on their reservation unemployed,” he said. “Eighty-nine percent of the Los Coyotes don’t live on the reservation because there aren’t any opportunities to them, there’s nothing even close.”

The Big Lagoon Rancheria and Los Coyotes Indian tribes applied in March 2006 with the Department of the Interior to use 40-acres of land to build a joint casino near Lenwood. The Chemehuevi tribe applied with the department in February 2006 for permission to use a 40-acre parcel nearby to build a competing casino.

The Department of the Interior sent letters to 22 tribes across the country with pending land into trust applications. The department denied 11 of the applications, including the three tribes with Barstow casino plans, but asked the other 11 tribes to resubmit their applications with additional information.

The federal land into trust decision comes as the second setback to the Big Lagoon and Los Coyotes casino proposal in recent months. In September, the tribes’ agreement with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for the dual casino project expired without being passed by the state legislature.

In a press release from the Los Coyotes, the tribe blasted the decision from the Department of the Interior calling the denial illegal. Tribal members objected to the decision because the department had not completed its environmental review of the project or visited Barstow before issuing the ruling, the release stated.

Jason Barnett, spokesman for the Big Lagoon Rancheria tribe that while the tribe is moving forward with its plans to build a casino on its Humboldt county reservation, said it has not ruled out building in Barstow.

“(Tribal chairman) Virgil (Moorehead) has always said that if we can find a way to make the project work in Barstow, we will,” Barnett said.

The ruling also stalled plans for the Chemehuevi tribe to move ahead with their casino proposal.

The tribe’s chairman, Charles Wood said that he’s not sure how the decision will affect the tribe’s Barstow plans or if the tribe will continue with the project.

“We’ll have to take that into consideration and see what are options are,” he said. “I can’t comment at this time as to what those may be.”

Despite the new obstacle of the Interior Department’s ruling, Dale said still supports a casino in Barstow and expects one to be built someday.

“I still have faith that we will get the casino, but it will take real hard work on everyone’s part,” he said. (ed~not if people start reading sites like TribalWatch)

Council member Steve Curran said that he only recently learned of the decision, but said he doesn’t think interest in bringing a casino to Barstow will fade.

“It will happen as long as there is profit to make and there are people willing to work on it,” he said.

Gift Horses

Not long ago the Santa Barbara News Press ran a very romantic tale on wonderful community deeds by the Chumah Casino. The letter reprinted below was sent in to the News Press to give a different perspective on their delightful little puff piece on their number one advertiser, the Chumash Casino. The News Press refused to print it. Here it is in its entirety for your reading pleasure, thanks to BadaBing, who sent it in. It rather clarifies which end of the horse the SY Valley really is dealing with when it deals with the Chumash Casino.

LOOKING A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH

We have all grown up hearing old adages, one of which was "you should never look a gift horse in the mouth." It undoubtedly had its origin in a day when checking horses carefully before purchase included checking its mouth and teeth. (Unless of course it was a gift).

Recently a few local newspapers, one in particular, chose to promote the Chumash tribe and its gambling casino, by putting a story implying great tribal "generosity" on the front page above the fold. This was apparently done because an editor of that paper has ties to an Indian gambling casino in the Midwest. It hasn't been disclosed how much, if anything, he gets in profits from the losses of the gamblers at his family's casino.

That 1.4 million dollars distributed by the Chumash tribal government to some local agencies, with great fanfare, was a distribution of moneys that had been paid into the mandatory Special Distribution Fund. That fund was required by the tribal-state compacts ostensibly to mitigate the many off-site negative impacts as a condition to have the exclusive right to operate highly profitable gambling casinos on Indian Lands in California. The amount the Indian gambling tribes are required to pay into that fund is at best, a pittance. Most political sages conclude the give-away compacts the gambling tribe received in 1999 were a reward from now deposed Governor Gray Davis, who was elected governor because of an even greater generosity of the gambling tribes who had been operating modest, but illegal casinos prior to 1998.

The first question the community should ask, is how much in taxes does the Chumash casino pay while they are taking in tens of millions of dollars from the pockets of gamblers, mostly hypnotized by the play of the unregulated Indian slot machines; many who, sadly, are losing money they cannot afford to lose. Eighty-five percent of the casino's 280 million a year in revenue comes from these slot machines.

Any non-Indian business of that size that took in nearly 25 million dollars every month would be paying at least 20 million a year in real property taxes, personal property and sales taxes, and probably corporate income taxes and other taxes needed to fund all the public services and infrastructure.

These kind of taxes are the kinds of taxes needed to fund the many public services and infrastructure used by everyone, like the police, fire, schools, roads, bridges, sewer and water systems, public works, welfare and social services, libraries, hospitals, airports, etc.

The Chumash casino doesn't pay any of these taxes because the federal courts long ago created a tribal immunity doctrine. That common law doctrine was intended to protect dependent, nascent Indian tribes from outside non-Indian interference in their strictly internal tribal business matters. It was never intended to allow modern-day Indian tribes, with only fractional connections to historic California Native peoples, to own and operate huge, profitable gambling casinos, hotels, restaurants, shopping malls and other businesses, without paying taxes and complying with all the laws every other business must comply with. These are laws that have been enacted over the decades to protect the patrons, the public and workers, and to protect the environment and quality of life for everyone in the community, including Indian descendants.

In addition to avoiding these business taxes, tribal members pay only federal income taxes on the $40,000 each member receives every month in a per capita profit distribution, paid out quarterly from the profits that are accumulated from the massive losses of gamblers. If your math is weak, that's about five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) paid to each tribal member, per year, or a total of about seventy-six million ($76,000,000) a year to the 153 tribal members. This tax immunity largesse also extends to state income taxes which then costs the state nearly another six million dollars ($6,000,000) a year in lost state income taxes. These same wealthy tribal members often purchase personal property like expensive cars, boats, furniture and appliances then claim exemption from the state sales taxes everyone else has to pay.

Finally, believe it or not, this now extremely wealthy tribe still collects nearly two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) a year in federal welfare and grant moneys.

So when the tribe agrees to "share" a tiny piece of these profits from gambling losses by making a $1,400,00 grant, from a fund the were required to pay into to mitigate the demand placed on public services and infrastructure by their tax exempt gambling monopoly, how grateful should the community be?

Three million for a high school field spread over three years is one million a year. That is not even 4% of the taxes the casino and its businesses should be paying every single year.

The gambling casino has been operating for years and the tribe, its customers and workers have been using the local hospital for years. How grateful should the community be when, with great Public Relations fanfare, it is announce the tribe is finally going to give $1,000,000 from these massive gambling profits to the Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital? This is a facility where many elderly gambling patrons are routinely taken by ambulance from the tribe's casino floor.

Perhaps the most often overlooked fact is that this massive newfound wealth of these Indian descendants is money amassed largely at the expense of the losses from gamblers, many of whom are addicted, and who lose money they cannot afford to lose while playing the unregulated slot machines at the Chumash casino.

The customers and workers in all Indian gambling casinos and businesses, like the Chumash casino, have no legal protections if they are injured, cheated, harassed or discriminated against because the vast majority of these laws have been created over the decades by state and local governments and can be evade by Indian tribal businesses. under current law, indian gambling tribes are able to avoid the application of these laws by claiming a common law immunity. Even in cases where outside contractors and vendors have made contracts in good faith with these Indian tribes and their businesses, these tribes can and do often use that immunity doctrine to evade paying their bills knowing the victims have no recourse. If the victim of these damages and injuries tries to sue them in local, state or federal courts, the gambling tribes and their businesses come into court to have the cases thrown out immediately, not after a trial or hearing on the merits, but on the claim these courts have no jurisdiction because of Indian tribal immunity (sometimes erroneously called "sovereign immunity").

So the bottom line is just how grateful should the community be when an Indian gambling casino, making hundreds of millions in tax free dollars, decides its is good public relations to make a few token contributions to specific service providers and public facilities? Particularly if the spate of these gifts is just because they want to expand their gambling operations even more at the community's expense and figure it's good public relations to seem generous with the help of a biased media.

How grateful should the community be when an already problematic gambling casino wants to expand, and further diminish the quality of Valley life? Should the community be grateful because the casino provides mostly low-paying "jobs" while the tribe and its businesses can openly evade the taxes needed to provide housing, public services and infrastructure, and the usual work protections required for those workers?

Should the community be grateful when crime, traffic, pollution, family neglect, divorce, gambling addiction, drug use, bankruptcy, and even suicide are all increased because many gamblers driving here or riding the busses (ironically called a "ride to riches") from the nearby communities to the Chumash casino in order to lose the money they need to live on?

In reality the "Chumash success" is based on the hundreds of millions of dollars being siphoned out of community members, other non-Indian businesses, entertainment and sports venues, even charities which will not get the money that is being lost by these gamblers.

A recent editorial in the Santa Maria Times, printed above the signature of the Chumash tribal chairman infers, that somehow this unsightly gambling casino, capitalizing on the weaknesses of gamblers who don't understand the psychology of these unregulated slot machines, or the extent of the repressive tribal government, is actually some kind of savior to the community and the poor, doling out free turkeys. Maybe if the poor were not enticed by the expensive million dollar media blitz in virtually every media outlet in the community urging them to ride the free buses "to casino riches" they could afford to buy their own turkeys at Thanksgiving. That "ride to riches" is obviously a ride to losses, to the tune of $280,000,000 million every year.

Maybe if the casino didn't attract the meth addicts and thieves and reckless drivers, the community wouldn't have to have more police, at greater taxpayer expense. Maybe if these gamblers didn't run off the road coming to or from the casino, there would be fewer deaths. Maybe if the Chumash had to pay the tens of millions to improve and maintain the roads and mitigate the negative impacts all over the Valley from traffic like any non-Indian business would have to pay as a condition of doing business, the residents would have some true gratitude.

The ultimate question to be answered is, "Does it matter where the moneys for these token gifts, made by the Chumash casino, come from? Is it really true we should never look a gift horse in the mouth no matter where the "gift" comes from and no matter what a pittance it is compared to the taxes that should be paid by the casino and that everyone else has to pay because the casino doesn't?

When the Alisal Ranch, the Gainey Winery or the Bacarra Resort make their regular tax payments, does it ever appear on the front page above the fold of any newspaper? Maybe we should be asking why not and what entitles a tax exempt gambling casino, operating above the laws protecting all of us, to such favorable publicity just because they choose to throw someone a little piece of those gambling losses once in a while in order to keep up public appearances and silence any criticism.

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."

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?

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.

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