gaming

Federal Court Denies Miccosukee Petition to Quash IRS Summons for 2010 Tax Year

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Miccosukee Tribe v. United States II (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Denying Miccosukee Motion to Quash

US Motion to Dismiss Petition to Quash

Miccosukee Response

US Reply

Transcript of Deposition of IRS Agent

We posted materials on the discovery request to depose the IRS agent here.

Materials on Miccosukee I (tax years 2006-2009, now on appeal to the CA11) are here. The key difference between I and II (other than tax years) is the Tribe’s claim that the government sought the financial documents for an improper purpose.

Mashee/Massachusetts Gaming Compact, Subject to Legislative Approval

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe-Commonwealth of Massachusetts Tribal-State Compact with Appendices

Update in Wyandotte v. Salazar (& Kansas)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are updated materials, with the district court now asking the parties to brief in the import of the Patchak decision:

Interior Motion to Dismiss Kansas Cross Claims

Kansas Opposition to Interior Motion

Interior Reply

Wyandotte Motion to Dismiss Kansas Cross Claims

Kansas Opposition to Wyandotte Motion

Wyandotte Reply

DCT Order re Patchak Supp Briefing

Our prior posts on this case are here and here and here.

Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino Bankruptcy Filings

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino Bankruptcy Petition

Omnibus Statement of Facts and Events

Marketa Trimble Proposes International Convention on Internet Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Marketa Trimble has posted her paper, “Proposal for an International Convention on Online Gambling,” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The proposal, which will be published as a chapter in a volume from the Internet Gaming Regulation Symposium co-organized by the William S. Boyd School of Law of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in May 2012, presents the outline of an international convention (‘Convention’) that will facilitate cooperation among countries in enforcement of their online gambling regulations while allowing the countries to maintain their individual legal approaches to online gambling. Countries continue to vary in their approaches – some permit and regulate, and others prohibit online gambling, and even countries that permit and regulate online gambling approach the issue differently. Countries cannot enforce their own online gambling regulations without assistance from other countries – specifically, the countries where online gambling operators have their operations and/or their assets. Under the proposed Convention, national online gambling regulators would cooperate in the exchange of necessary information, in the licensing and standardization of technological requirements for online gambling operators, and, most importantly, in assisting with the enforcement of foreign country regulations by imposing geolocation and filtering requirements on online gambling operators. The chapter discusses the challenges that the proposal faces and suggests that the challenges can be overcome. Recent events in the online gambling world, such as ‘Black Friday,’ demonstrate a pressing need for effective international cooperation among Internet gambling regulators, and the proposed Convention, by providing a solution to the vexing problem of enforcement of online gambling regulation on the Internet, can provide the impetus for national discussions on online gambling.

Miccosukee Tribe’s $26M RICO Suit against Billy Cypress et al.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint:

Cypress RICO Suit

Via Pechanga.

Narragansett Challenge to Rhode Island Casino Law Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State (R.I. Super.):

11-0621

Two Carcieri-Style Complaints Opposing Ione Band of Miwok Indians Trust Acquisition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is Villa v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

Villa v Salazar Complaint

And here is No Casino in Plymouth v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

NCIP v Salazar Complaint

Briefs in Furry v. Miccosukee Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Furry Opening Brief

Miccosukee Brief

Furry Reply

Opinion here: CA11 Opinion

11th Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from State Law Dram Shop Actions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. Briefs later, hopefully.

An excerpt:

Furry instead relies on the one state court decision that has gone the other way, Bittle v. Bahe, 192 P.3d 810 (Okla. 2008), where the Oklahoma Supreme Court, over strong dissent, held that § 1161, read together with Rehner, abrogated tribal immunity from any suit based on state laws related to alcohol, including private tort suits. See id. at 823. Notwithstanding the admonition of the United States Supreme Court in Kiowa Tribe that “[t]here is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws [26] and the means available to enforce them,” 523 U.S. at 755, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that private tort actions to enforce compliance with state liquor laws were permissible because the “state law remedy to recover money damages furthers the legitimate objectives of the state’s liquor laws,” Bittle, 192 P.3d at 823. Although the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis does not bind this Court in any way, we also find it unpersuasive and inconsistent with precedents from this Court and the United States Supreme Court, which have established that congressional abrogation of tribal immunity must be express and unequivocal. Cf. Bittle, 192 P.3d at 829, 833 (Kauger, J., dissenting) (observing that the majority opinion “ignores controlling precedents” and that “[i]t takes a great leap of jurisprudence to determine that Rice v. Rehner is dispositive of the issue of sovereign immunity as it relates to private dram shop actions”).