Here is the complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Hickory Ground Complaint, Muscogee Creek Nation v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians
Here is the complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Here is the complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Here is the lengthy opinion in United States v. MacGregor (M.D. Ala.):
If anyone thinks this is a post-racial society, this opinion should disabuse us of that notion. Here is an excerpt:
Beason, Lewis, and their political allies sought to defeat SB380 partly because they believed the absence of the referendum on the ballot would lower African–American voter turnout during the 2010 elections. One of the government’s recordings captured Beason and Lewis discussing political strategy with other influential Republican legislative allies. A confederate warned: “Just keep in mind if [a pro-gambling] bill passes and we have a referendum in November, every black in this state will be bused to the polls. And that ain’t gonna help.” Trial Transcript, Doc. No. 1298, at 80. The participants predicted: “Every black, every illiterate” would be “bused on HUD financed buses.” Id.Beason agreed: “That’s right. This will be busing extra…. Because you gotta have somebody to pay for those buses.” Id. at 81. One participant replied that casinos would provide “free food” and gambling certificates to get black voters to the polls. Id.
In a separate conversation, during which Lewis asked whether the predominantly black residents of Greene County were “y’all’s Indians?,” id.at 86, Beason responded by derisively referring to blacks as “Aborigines.” Id. at 87. [Footnote 2: While this remark is primarily targeted at African–Americans, the court notes that it also evidences Beason’s racist animus toward Native Americans. The history of oppression against Native Americans continues today, particularly in the American West. See, e.g., Pamela S. Karlan, Lightning in the Hand: Indians and Voting Rights, 120 Yale L.J. 1420 (2011).]
This dispute arises from the Poarch Band’s high stakes bingo operations. Poarch Band was not named.
The case is Hardy v. IGT (M.D. Ala.):
Multimedia Games Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Allman v. Creek Casino Wetumpka (M.D. Ala.):
Magistrate Recommendation on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Here are the materials so far in Bussey v. Macon County Greyhound Park (M.D. Ala.) relating to the motion to dismiss the tribal defendant:
Miami Tribe BDA Motion to Dismiss
DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs contend that, without the benefit of discovery, they cannot ascertain whether the Tribe “waived sovereign immunity by contract or other agreement” (Doc. # 96, at 3) because they are not in the possession of any contracts (Doc. # 96, at 6). The court takes no position on whether, as Plaintiffs assert, discovery “most likely” will prove a contractual waiver of sovereign immunity as to Plaintiffs’ claim against the Tribe. (Doc. # 96, at 6.) It is noted, though, that the existence of such a contract is neither admitted nor denied by the Tribe. All of this is why, without discovery, it would be inappropriate at this time to determine the issue of sovereign immunity on a factual Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Accordingly, the Tribe’s motion to dismiss based upon sovereign immunity is due to be denied at this time.
Here is the opinion in TP Johnson Holdings v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians. And the PCI motion to dismiss (apparently unopposed) — PCI Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
In this case, the amended complaint makes no reference to federal law; it is entirely premised on state-law claims to quiet title and for ejectment and trespass (Doc. # 5, PP 11-27). In the ordinary case, it would thus be clear that there was no basis for federal question jurisdiction. The Johnson Land Owners claim, however, that jurisdiction nonetheless exists. They point to a Supreme Court case adjudicating Indian land claims and stating that “[w]ith the adoption of the Constitution, Indian relations became the exclusive province of federal law.” Oneida County, N.Y. v. Oneida Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226, 234 (1985) (Oneida County II). In citing these passages, the Johnson Land Owners urge the court to adopt a broad rule that any case that has an Indian tribe as a party and concerns a land dispute is subject to federal jurisdiction. (Doc. # 5, P 3). The Johnson Land Owners also argue that, if the Tribe’s asserted sovereign immunity defense is valid, Congress has “abrogated” the Fifth Amendment with respect to their rights, thus creating a federal question (Doc. # 5, P 4). Finally, they assert that Section 1362, combined with an 1866 treaty to which the Creek Indians were party, indicate that there is federal jurisdiction in this case (Doc. # 5, P 5).