Download(PDF): Letter of Notification
From the Tribe:
The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe announced today that it has notified the State of Wisconsin of its intent to withhold its revenue sharing payment of $923,000 due to the State’s violation of its gaming compact with the tribe.
The State is in violation of two sections of its compact with the Stockbridge-Munsee by:
- Allowing the Ho-Chunk Nation to unlawfully operate its Wittenberg Casino on lands not eligible for Indian gaming under IGRA since 2008.
- Allowing the Ho-Chunk Nation to operate the Wittenberg Casino beyond the scope permitted in Ho-Chunk Nation’s gaming compact with the State since 2008.
More information and supporting documents can be found on the tribal website.
Here is the decision declining to act on the Class III compact between Graton Rancheria and the State of California:
State Graton 13 July 2012
Here is the decision opining on aspects of the compact negotiations between the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the State of Arizona:
PascuaYaqui 6 15 12 ltr
Yesterday, July 2, according to Michael McBride. Here is the federal injunction at issue:
Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award in Favor of ESTOO 07-01.
This one is San Pasqual Band v. California (S.D. Cal.). Here are the materials:
DCT Order Granting San Pasqual Motion for Summary J
San Pasqual Band Motion for Summary Judgment
San Pasqual Reply
The best part about this and related cases (Colusa and Rincon) is this comment from the news (via Pechanaga):
Last week, the Rincon Indian band won a lawsuit in which a second San Diego judge ruled the number of slots allowed statewide under the 1999 deal should be nearly 56,000.
The confusion stems from the fact that the cap number was expressed through a formula open to interpretation.
The actual number of slots in the state is much higher, over 60,000, because some tribes have made new deals for more machines.
Here are the materials in Flandreau Sioux v. South Dakota, out of the District of South Dakota.
Here is the tribe’s claim:
Continue reading →
Here is the complaint in Devlin v. Cox, the case brought by the former Michigan Gaming Control Board employee now working for Detroit casino interests over whether tribal gaming operations should be required to apply for state liquor licenses. [Our previous post.]
The odd thing about this claim is that Devlin suggests in the news that he thinks it is unfair that tribal casinos don’t have to be licensed but the Detroit casinos do. There are some weird things about this claim.
First, why is it unfair? Is there some money value lost by the Detroit casinos over this regulatory “advantage”? No, of course not. Tribal casinos are a hundred miles away, mostly far from the market that Detroit dominates — that is, southeast Michigan. So Devlin’s “unfairness” claim won’t do his new clients any good even if he prevails.
Second, Devlin’s federal Indian law/liquor regulation argument ignores the modern history of tribal-state relations. Yes, there are ambiguities in this area of the law. And so the tribal and state negotiators did the smart thing in 1993 and later — avoid litigation by creating a “law of the deal” that finds a way around the muddied legal waters. It was part of the horse-trading that went on in that negotiation. It’s the epitome of fairness.
Finally, if fairness were any measure, Devlin must be forgetting that the Michigan governor who cut the deal in 1993 promised the seven compacting tribes that they would have market exclusivity in the entire State, only to renege on that promise as soon as it was made by gunning for state-licensed casinos in Detroit.
Devlin’s idea of fairness is a joke.
From Indianz. The Department of Interior neither approved nor disapproved the amendments, so they are in force after the expiration of 45 days.