Final vote was 16 for, 13 against.
Oneida County Votes to Approve Settlement With the OIN
Final vote was 16 for, 13 against.
Oneida Indian Nation
Cayuga Press Release in Response to OIN/NY State Agreement
Copy of the OIN/NY State/County Agreement
The 79 page PDF is here
Via Syracuse.com.
Additional Coverage and Details of the OIN/NY State Deal
From Syracuse.com Sunday edition. Here.
ETA: PDF of Governor’s Press Release: 142625702-Turning-Stone-Agreement-News-Release
How Gov. Cuomo, the Oneida Indian Nation and two counties made historic deal in record time
They were still negotiating Thursday morning; the 1 p.m. news conference to announce the agreement was delayed 30 minutes while lawyers cleaned up language.
Even the one-page document that Halbritter and Cuomo ceremoniously signed is just a conceptual agreement. The real document, with its attachments and addenda, was still being massaged by lawyers Friday afternoon.
Oneida Indian Nation and State of New York Agreement on Wide Range of Issues
Details from the Syracuse.com article:
In a deal announced today, the Oneidas will give 25 percent of their gaming machine revenues to the state in exchange for exclusive rights to run casinos in a 10-county area of Central New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that could mean $50 million a year for the state.
— Oneida and Madison counties agree to drop all legal action against the Oneidas over land and tax issues. The state will drop any support of those actions.
— No casinos would be built in the 10-county Central New York region, which includes Onondaga County. Vernon Downs, which opened in 2006, could continue to operate.
— The Oneidas, which have been granted 13,000 acres of tax-exempt trust land by the federal government, agree to cap their total trust land to 25,000 acres.
— Oneida County will get $2.5 million a year and Madison County will get $3.5 million from the state’s share of the Oneidas’ payments.
— The Oneidas will charge — and keep — the same sales taxes New York state charges. The Oneidas must use that money for the same kinds of services New York does.
— The nation will waive its sovereign immunity for the agreement, allowing New York to take the tribe to federal court in any disputes.
Federal Court Remands Oneida Indian Nation Trust Acquisitions to Interior for Reconsideration in Light of Carcieri
Here are the massive materials in New York v. Salazar (N.D. N.Y.):
Oneida Indian Nation Motion for Summary J
Oneida Indian Nation Opposition
Here are posts on the constitutional challenges to the trust acquisition from way back (here and here). And our sadly prescient commentary from 2008 here.
Oneida CEO Ray Habritter on Fox News
Here.
NYTs on Indian-Manufactured Cigarettes
Here.
Excerpt:
Inside, employees of the Oneida Indian Nation dump the shredded tobacco leaves into rolling machines and fashion them into cigarettes to be sold at a dozen tribal convenience stores midway between Syracuse and Utica.
The cigarettes, branded with names like Niagara’s and Bishop, sell for as little as $39.95 for a 10-pack carton — much cheaper than those at non-Indian retailers — and bring in millions of dollars a year to the tribe, which also has a resort casino, five golf courses and a multimedia production house.
“We tried poverty for 200 years,” the Oneidas’ leader, Ray Halbritter, said in an interview. “We decided to try something different.”
Thanks to T.W.
Lawyer for Madison County Sued for Violating State Finance Laws in Defending Land Claims
United States v. New York: Government Cert Petition in Oneida Indian Nation Land Claims
Here is the petition:
Here is the question presented:
The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 (also known as the Nonintercourse Act) stated in relevant part that “no purchase or grant of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indians or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by a treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution.” Ch. 19, § 8, 1 Stat. 330. The question presented is as follows:
Whether the United States may be barred from enforcing the Nonintercourse Act against a State that repeatedly purchased and resold (at a substantial profit) Indian lands in violation of the Act between 1795 and 1846, based on the passage of time and the transfer of the unlawfully obtained Indian lands into the hands of third parties, when the United States seeks monetary relief only against the State.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.