State of Alabama’s Expert on Class II Bingo Formerly Consulted for NIGC and Worked for Many Indian Tribes

As reported on Indianz and Pechanga the last few days, the State of Alabama’s retained expert, D. Robert Sertell,  on technical gaming issues took issue with the NIGC’s determination that Poarch Band of Creek Indians gaming operations are legal. Here’s a quote from a news article titled “FBI could raid Alabama’s Indian casinos, says gambling expert,” that quotes Sertell extensively:

Sertell visited Poarch Creek gaming operations and concluded in a 2004 report that their machines did not qualify as Class II gaming and were therefore illegal.

In a telephone interview this month, Sertell questioned the competence and integrity of the national commission, saying Stevens’ letter “ignores federal law so hard, it’s almost laughable.”

“NIGC’s executives are all members of Indian tribes,” he said of the commission. “This is Indians regulating Indians.”

In addition to not wanting to “alienate their Indian relatives and friends,” the agency is also inclined to ignore illegal gambling operations because increased Indian gambling revenue means more funding for the commission, Sertell said.

As Sertel’s CV (Sertell CV, not sure how old this is) notes, he has worked for many, many Indian tribes on technical issues. He even wrote an expert report for Shingle Springs Miwok years ago (Shingle Springs Declaration). Also, he consulted with the NIGC from 1998-2001, during a period of time in which NIGC’s position was that virtually all electronic bingo should be classified as Class III, a position rejected by two federal circuits (Tenth Circuit and Eighth Circuit).

Briefing in Seminole Tribe v. Starkman — Effort to Recover for Bad Checks from Problem Gambler

Here are those briefs (Fla. App.):

Seminole Tribe Appellant Brief

Starkman Appellee Brief

Big Sandy Rancheria v. Brownstone LLC — Contract Claim re: Gaming Management

Here is that opinion:

Big Sandy Rancheria v Brownstone LLC

Illinois Federal Court Vacates Default Judgment against Ponca Tribe — No Diversity Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Merit Management v. Ponca (N.D. Ill.):

Ponca Motion to Vacate

Merit Management Response

Ponca Reply

DCT Order Granting Ponca Motion to Vacate

Clark v. Rolling Hills Casino — Immunity from Police Brutality Claim

Here are the materials:

Rolling Hills Casino Motion to Dismiss

Magistrate Findings and Recommendation

Wells Fargo Bank v. Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Chippewa) — Another Case re: Tribal Business Operations and Receivership

Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Bank v. Sokaogon Chippewa Community (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Denying Mole Lake Motion to Dismiss

Mole Lake Motion to Dismiss

Mole Lake Motion Exhibits

Wells Fargo Opposition

Wells Fargo Exhibits

Mole Lake Reply + Exhibits

A few excerpts from the opinion:

Continue reading

Wanatee v. Sac and Fox Tribe — Complaint for Back Per Cap Payments

As reported on Indianz….

Wanatee Complaint

Marshall Investments Corp. v. Harrah’s — N.Y. Courts Strike Tortious Interference with Contract Claim on Void Gaming Management Contract

Here is the opinion in Marshall Investments Corp. v. Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. (N.Y. A.D.) (unpublished), pages 6-7 of the pdf.

An excerpt:

The subject pledge agreement did not constitute a management contract which required the approval of the National Indian Gaming Commission (25 CFR 502.15; cf. Machal, Inc. v Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, 387 F Supp 2d 659, 666-667 [2005]). However, because it changes the Tribe’s obligations, requiring them to make payments into escrow, and alters their liabilities, giving the right to sue and a veto over certain modifications of a separate management agreement to plaintiffs, the pledge agreement is a modification or assignment of rights under the management agreement. As such, it is void because it was never approved by the commission (25 CFR 533.7). Since the underlying contract is void, plaintiffs cannot recover for tortious interference with that contract (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]).

Federal Court Denies Bay Mills’ Motion to Stay Shutdown Order of Vanderbilt Casino Pending Appeal

Here is that order:

Order denying motion for stay

The motion is here.

The briefs in opposition are here:

LTTB Response to Motion for Stay

Michigan Response to BMIC Motion for Stay

Ninth Circuit Decides Contract Indemnity Claim re: Colorado River Indian Tribes Casino Project

Here is the unpublished opinion in Tri-Star Theme Builders, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.