Another Patrick bluff
WBZ is reporting that preliminary talks for a compact are underway between the Mashpee Wampanoag and the state.
They even rolled out a Harvard "expert" to tell us all how inevitable it is. Professor Kevin Washburn sounded like he needs to study up on Indian law - particularly how it works in real life. He might check in with the Kickapoo tribe in Texas who have been trying to get a class 3 compact for the last 12 years.
This non-story is a last ditch effort by Patrick to frighten the legislature into passing his commercial casino legislation.
And why is Senate President Therese Murray such a casino shill? Why doesn't she give some of that Plymouth land to the Mashpee if casinos are so great.
Don't forget that a compact would still need to pass the legislature - and the dog ain't barking.
Update - It has come to my attention that the professor featured in the video is a member of the Chickasaw Tribe and an Oneida Nation Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School
Hardly unbiased.
27 comments:
Bumpkin,
I have seen the light! I was shocked by what this so-called gaming expert had to say...I don't have a law degree but I certainly know from months and months of research that what he said is just not true. Of course he is a visiting law professor who happens to be an Indian....how freaking surprising! Shame on WBZ for broadcasting such a one-sided story...unbiased media? Yeah right! Just goes to prove you can't trust the media...you need to find out the whole story all on your own. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
Carverchick
One thing I've found over and over again:
When you see/hear something about casinos that you know is just not true, or doesn't make sense .... immediately start looking for the pro-gambling force behind it.
Does the DOI require the legislature to approve a compact with the tribe or just the state's governor?
Does the DOI require the legislature to approve a compact with the tribe or just the state's governor?
Normally it's the governor - but it depends on state law. In our case it has to go through the legislature and the governor.
If you remember from last spring/summer, party boy Glenn Marshall was going around saying that they thought the governor could do it by w/out the legislature.
The compact will not get through the legislature.
Casinos. Inevitable or not.
Deciding whether it's inevitable or not, is a silly way to look at the issue. The real question is, are Indian Casinos *probable* or not.
There are hurdles:
1) Identify tribal land Middleboro? Maybe, maybe not. Likely however, there is tribal land somewhere in Massachusetts.
2) Place into Federal trust. Can the state stop it? Maybe, but probably not, if it is tribal land.
3) Slots. Maybe. Remember, the state doesn *not* make just slots illegal. The State makes Class III gambling illegal. Class III includes blackjack, roulette, slots, poker, etc....
Now, I don't know about you, but I've been to more than one 'Las Vegas' nights in Massachusetts, where there was permitted blackjack and other table games. So, does that mean there are situations where Massachusetts has, and continues to allow 'social' class III gambling. Maybe or maybe not. If so, then too would Class III be permitted in an Indian casino.
No one, in my estimation, can declare Indian gaming inevitable, nor can they declare it impossible.
No slots = No ROI = No casino
It's all about the slots
anonymous....one word about your theory that because MA allows Las Vegas nites then an Indian casino can also....Kickapoo.
No one says they are impossible, we are saying they are only inevitable if we let them be. This is still America...at least it was the last time I checked. Yes, the Indians have rights but so do us Americans....who is to say anyone is more equal than another?
If they want the land, they can have it....just don't put a casino on it and certainly don't try and scare people into believing there is nothing to be done about it - that casinos are inevitable.
The only reason...ONLY reason the tribe wants the land in Middleboro is to build a casino -- why? because there is no way in hell they will be allowed to build one on the Cape. The only way they can get approvasl to build a casino is by putting it on an initial reservation...sooooo, suddenly Middleboro is their ancestral land and must be declared their initial reservation so they can exercise their right to build a casino. Far as I can tell, they have no right to build a casino here because their ancestral land is in Mashpee....not Middleboro.
Bumpkin,
So in Mass the legislature has to approve the compact. How much of the legislature is required, a simple majority 50%+1?
If this is the case I don't see why Deval is bringing this out now other than to scare the uninformed legislature members. I can't believe at this point in the debate there would be any informed Reps or senators. This could be another nail in Patrick's political carrer.
I'm presuming only a simple majority is required - but don't know for sure.
This is just Patrick trying the old "sign now or else" routine.
Nothing more.
Get those letters done people - it's close to over.
For the Indian casino, like any other casino, it's all about the slots.
BUT, my point is that if the Indians can show that ANY Class III gambling is legal in the state, then their casino can include Class III gambling.
i.e. if blackjack is legal in Mass, then slots are also allowed in the Indian Casino because blackjack--like slots--is a Class III game.
Yes but not all class three - only the stuff that is legal in the state.
Slots are not legal even under charity las vegas nights.
No slots, no casino.
The last post is wrong.
The indian's can only have what is currently legal in MA today.
Slots are still illegal are they not? Have you ever seen a slot machine at a casino night?
NO SLOTS, NO CASINO, NO PROFITS.
75% of a casinos take comes from Slots. or $750MM. Would you open a casino that might yield ony $250MM divided by 3?
Let's not forget that the Kickapoo in Texas have been trying to get class 3 for 12 years with no end in sight. And I'm not even talking slots - I'm talking about the same sort of C3 table games that MA allows for charity nights.
Anyone who thinks an indian tribe can do whatever they please is absolutley nuts. If Ma. allows this...and that...tribes can automaticaly do...nothing. If they could of they would of. The Las Vegas night argument is pretty weak.
Anonymous, there is tribal land for the Mashpees, in Mashpee.
Also, plenty of social Las Vegas nights have been raided and shut down, because high stakes are not permitted. It happened at a Brockton bar two years ago, raided by state police. "Las Vegas night" is a catchy marketing thing, it's fancy lingo for playing cards. Seems to me people watch too much T.V., they all want to be the poker champ with tacky sunglasses and hat.
You keep jumping ahead to the obvious conclusion: no slots, no casino. I agree.
But, you're missing the point.
Early in the Foxwood's story, Connecticut's position was that Class III games were not legal in the state.
But Mashantucket Pequot Indians pointed the various annual Las Vegas nights where casino-type games (i.e. Class III) were legal.
CT said no, and the courts then found the state was not negotiating in good faith and Foxwoods was born.
The issue then arose, (and it's the point at hand) because Class III are allowed, does that mean all Class III. Rather than risk losing the issue, the state negotiated a pact.
So, how would that question have been settled? Does the existence of Class III mean all Class III?
The best answer to that question is, maybe.
And assertions to the contrary is either i) spin ii)ignorant iii) wishful thinking.
I don't know how the courts will settle it and neither do you.
IGRA is clear on this. The tribe may only do gambling that is legal in the state: located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.
I don't know what happened in CT and so can't comment on it.
Despite the Las Vegas nights, MA has a history of resisting all class three. It is doubtful that the state can be compelled to enter into a compact at all (see Kickapoo suit in Texas). The tribe will not get slots unless we give it to them.
Class three is not all or nothing. They may be able to do class three that is legal in the state. Slots are not legal.
It's just that simple.
anonymous...again,that question was already answered by the Kickapoo case. Get over it...they don't stand a chance in hell in suing the state of Massachusetts by threatening Las Vegas nites....they will lose. Our Governor may not be so bright, but thank goodness our Attorney General is.
What happened in Connecticut was criminal if you ask me....here we have a lawyer who knows that the so called Tribe really isn't a tribe, yet manages to sneak in under the radar...better yet, neglects to disclose information to the US government regarding this faux tribe. This same lawyer then threatens a State and a bunch of innocent homeowners with a bogus lawsuit and wins out of fear - sound familiar???...we have all learned since then. BTW, the Mashpee Tribe tried to do the same thing in 78 under the same lawsuit and lost. Why? Because the state of Massachusetts wasn't having any of it...took it to trial and a jury determined that they were not a tribe under federal definintion. How did they then be able to become a Federally recognized tribe AFTER they had been determined to not be a tribe? Money....money from rich foreign investors who paid off people so they could hopefully cash in on someone elses sovereignty. If you think for one second we are going to roll over and allow what happened in Connecticut to happen here, you are sorely mistaken.
Yeah, what carverchick said.
Dear anon. 5:36 pm,
CT and the Pequots did negotiate a compact. It did NOT include slots. Repeat... it did NOT include slots.
Foxwoods was desperate to have slots. The governor at the time was looking at a budget shortfall of 150 M. The Tribe sent a lawyer to offer CT 150M or 25% of the slot revenue IF he would ammend the compact to allow slots. Which he did. Which sent the CT legislature into a tirade.
Now CT has higher taxes, is dependent on casinos for revenue, and is trying repeal vegas nights so slot will once again be off the table.
It was the governor, NOT the compact.
Greed is good for tribes, lobbyists, lawyers and the occassional governor. Bad for people who have to live near casinos.
Kickapoo? That's your authority?!
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C05/05-50754-CV0.wpd.pdf
Read the case yourself. The issue in Kicapoo IS THIS: Can the tribe conduct Class III gaming if no compact has been reached with the State? It known as "Track II to Casino Class III"
Seminole Tribe, a US Supreme Court decision found Track II to be Constitutionally flawed.
Under Seminole Tribe, a tribe could NOT compel a state to waive immunity, and therefore, the state of Texas DID NOT have to agree to be sued by the Tribe.
However, the US can sue the state to obtain a 'good faith determination' whether the state is acting in good faith with respect to negotiations.
Then came Kickapoo. The Secretary of the Interior made a decision regarding the particular games that the Tribe may operate.
Kickapoo found that the Secretary of Interior overstepped his authority. That's Kickapoo.
So where are we? Well, Kickapoo is on appeals to Supreme Court. If the Tribe wins at the Supreme Court then the Interior Secretary will have authority to determine which games are permitted. Slots? Casino night games? More? Less? Who knows?
If the Tribe loses, then you'll see yet another case seeking the US to compel the State of Texas to negotiate in good faith to allow Class III games. Slots? Casino night? More? Less? Who knows?
This much is true, there is NO legal answer to this question: Does "Good faith" negotiation under 2710(d)(7) of the IGRA mean that if the state has legal Class III games operating within its jurisdiction, it must allow ALL class III games to be operated in an Indian Casino?
The issue has been well briefed by the Tribes in anticipation that the issue will eventually arise in the Courts. Why, I myself prepared one of the briefs.
So, if you know the answer to this question is "NO", I'd love to see your legal authority as opposed to the 'authority by saying it loudly'.
My authority is this:
There has never been a state that was compelled to offer a type of gaming that was NOT legal in the state. That is what IGRA says, and that is how it has worked in practice for every Indian casino in the country.
The onus is on you to show us a case where slots were illegal and the state was forced to allow them in a tribal casino.
That is the issue and all your half-baked legal mumbo-jumbo isn't going to change that fact.
First, with regards to the gaming compact in CT. True, the first compact, signed by the Governor, did not include slots. The amendment, signed by the Governor, did. It's still a legal 'gaming compact'.
Second, the State of CT has already repealed 'las vegas nights.' The repeal has no effect on the 'gaming compact' because of 2710(d)(3)(C)) section 17. It's binding unless dissolved by both parties, irrespective of other changes in State law regarding Class III gambling.
You say "The onus is on you to show us a case where slots were illegal and the state was forced to allow them in a tribal casino." That would be true, if I were saying it.
I'm saying, the answer to that question is not legally yet answered. Therefore, I don't know, and neither do you.
Fine let's leave it that.
I am quite comfortable that MA cannot be compelled to give slots to the tribe, and that the facility will be financially unfeasible without them.
More importantly, based on the memo recently circulated by Bosley, the key players in the house agree with me.
MA does not need to negotiate a compact complete with C3 slots out of fear that they may be compelled to do so later. The House knows that.
Sigh. You actually haven't read what I wrote did you.
Your synopsis is not at all what I said with regards to the 'inevitability'.
You know, I've actually worked in this area of law for many years and for both sides.
Your rep would be well served if he took a careful look at some of the Briefs that indeed claim that states CAN be compelled simply on the basis of las vegas nights.
Regardless, sorry to confuse you with all the 'legal mumbo jumbo.' Continue with the spin.
ciao
So I'll restate your point - which seems to be that it has not been legally determined whether or not MA can be compelled to give all C3 including slots in a state/tribal compact:
So, how would that question have been settled? Does the existence of Class III mean all Class III?
The best answer to that question is, maybe.
I'll offer this proof. In Rumsey Indian Rancheria v. Wilson the ninth circuit ruled:
that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) does not require a state to negotiate with an Indian tribe over one form of gaming activity simply because it has legalized another similar form of gaming.
If this is not your point please restate it in a way that us non-lawyers can understand.
And if this is your question, please offer alternative law precedent to support it.
Further more you stated:
Your rep would be well served if he took a careful look at some of the Briefs that indeed claim that states CAN be compelled simply on the basis of las vegas nights.
It is possible that the state may be compelled to allow the types of games legal under Las Vegas nights. I maintain that based in Kickapoo - the state can hold that off indefinitely. The Kickapoo have been at it for 12 years. But most of all, we do not have to give class 3 slots.
And my point most of all is that the lack of C3 slots will make the Middleboro casino economically unfeasible.
Lastly - why don't you identify yourself ? You claim to have attended las vegas nights in MA and claim to have worked in Indian law cases. Are you JW?
Given: without slots casinos aren't economical. That's easy.
Rumsey Indian Rancheria indeed finds that Class III doesn't necessarily mean all class III. There are a couple other circuits who have found differently, and Rumsey Indian isn't binding on Mass 1st circuit.
SC will eventually get the case. Who will the SC side with? I don't know. But, if it sides against Rumsey Indian Rancheria, then by virtue of having Class III in the form of Las Vegas Nights, Mass could be compelled to negotiate all Class III in an Indian Casino. It's possible.
And, it's taken Kickapoo 12 years and will probably require more, but if SC rules in favor of Kickapoo, you can bet that it won't take 12 years for other tribes in other states to follow.
I'm merely trying to change the debate. There's one side saying slots/casinos are inevitable. They're wrong.
The other side says State doesn't have to allow slots. They're wrong.
The answer is in the middle, and the question isn't "inevitability".
The question is "how probable is it that the Indians can get slots in Massachusetts absent a state gaming compact?" BECAUSE, it is possible, but not inevitable.
I don't know who JW is.
I don't know who JW is.
Are you KW?
Post a Comment