Gatzaros Awarded Stake in Greektown Casino

From the Detroit News: “After nearly 10 years of investigating Greektown businessman Ted Gatzaros, the Michigan Gaming Control Board today awarded him partial ownership in a Detroit casino.”By a unanimous vote, the board approved Gatzaros’ application to become a 1 percent owner in Greektown Casino. Before the vote, board members said they could find no reason to reject the request.”

***

“Gatzaros and his partner Jim Pappas were instrumental in pushing casino gambling in Detroit in the 1990s. After voters approved casino gambling in a statewide referendum, Detroit awarded the pair one of three casino licenses.

“Following an investigation, however, the Gaming Board indicated a license to the pair would not be approved. Gatzaros and Pappas ultimately ended up selling their interest to the Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

“Under that sale agreement, the Tribe promised to sell a 4 percent interest in the casino and split the money between Gatzaros and Pappas. However, the agreement did not include a timetable for the sale.

“With the board’s decision today, Gatzaros has agreed instead to take 1 percent ownership in the casino.”

Hammitte v. Leavitt: Detroit Urban Indians Case Dismissed

The federal district court in Detroit granted the motion to dismiss filed by the United States/Indian Health Service on October 11, 2007.

The opinion is here.

Hammitte v. Leavitt Complaint

United States Motion to Dismiss

Hammitte Response to Motion

United States Reply Brief

More Coverage of Soo Tribe Vote on Inland

From the AP: “The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians said Thursday that its members have approved an agreement between five American Indian tribes and the state of Michigan over inland hunting and fishing rights.”

Coverage of Soo Tribe Vote

From Soo News:

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Votes to Approve Inland Settlement

BIG NEWS!!!!

From the Soo Tribe website:

Membership Approves of Inland Consent Decree

Written by Cory Wilson

Thursday, 18 October 2007

The Sault Tribe Election Committee released the unofficial election results pertaining to the referendum on tribal members’ inland treaty rights, indicating 3,476 voted to approve, 678 voted to disapprove, while 28 ballots were deemed spoiled or unrecognizable.

The Election Committee announced that 4,182 ballots were received out of 12,734 mailed to the membership, accounting for a 32.8 % voter turnout. According to these results, this referendum exceeds the 30% vote requirement and therefore, is considered a valid election as defined by the election code.

On August 14, the Board of Directors determined an issue of such importance should be sent to a vote of the people by referendum to decide whether or not the tribe should enter into a permanent agreement with the state and federal government regarding tribal members’ rights related to inland fishing, hunting, and gathering. Subsequently, the referendum ballot language was approved on September 17, which asked tribal members “Do you approve or disapprove of resolution: Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree?” The election ballot was mailed to members on September 27. The deadline to return ballots was 5 p.m. on October 17.

The “Inland Consent Decree” is an agreement between five northern Michigan tribes, the state of Michigan, and the federal government that defines and details the specific treaty rights of tribal members. An “Agreement in Principal” was signed by all parties last summer, which committed all those involved to work together to formulate an agreement or settlement.

Following the release of the election results Chairperson Aaron Payment stated, ”Despite strident opposition from select board members to letting the people decide this issue, an overwhelming response of over 80 percent should put the issue to rest. I am satisfied with the outcome. The people have spoken.”

According to the tribe’s lead attorney, even though a referendum was held, official approval by resolution is still required. A special meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Sunday, October 21 at 1:00 p.m. at the Kewadin Shores Casino in St. Ignace to accept the election results and to enact the resolution specifically outlined in the referendum.

The resolution titled, “Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree for U.S. v. MI” and states, “Whereas, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is currently engaged in the inland phase of the United States v. State of Michigan, informally know as “US v MI”, and the parties are: as Plaintiff, The United States of America, and as Plaintiff-Interveners, Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, versus as Defendants, State of Michigan, et al, and as Amicus Curiae, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Bay De Noc Great Lakes Sportfisherman, Inc, and U.P. Whitetails, Inc, and finally as Amicus Curiae, the Coalition to Protect Michigan’s Resources, Stuart Cheney, Robert Andrus, Walloon Lake Trust and Conservancy (“Parties”); and…the Parties agreed to a binding settlement of the inland phase of US v. MI by executing an Agreement in Principle; and…upon execution of the Agreement in Principle the Parties agree to prepare a proposed consent decree and a stipulation for the entry of the proposed consent decree based upon the terms and conditions of the Agreement in Principle; and…through lengthy negotiations the Parties have completed a proposed consent decree and are presenting it to their respective governing bodies for ratification. Now therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby ratifies the Inland Consent Decree. Be it further resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Chairperson, or his designees, to execute a stipulation for entry of the proposed consent decree, or other implementing documents as my be necessary.”

The Board of Directors is also scheduled to meet with the judge presiding over the Inland Consent Decree case on October 22, to finalize any other legal matters related to the case.

Gatherer’s Rights under the Inland Settlement

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/NEWS06/710070683

New rules on gathering seen as an attack on Indians’ way of life

ST. IGNACE — Standing in a field with the Mackinac Bridge as a backdrop, Tony Grondin scatters loose tobacco on the ground.

He mutters a prayer in Anishinabewoon under his breath, thanking the life he is about to take for its gift. With a knife, he makes a deft, bloodless cut and then gently holds up his prey: branches of a nannyberry bush.

Grondin, 58, is a gatherer for his tribe, the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa. From boiled bear fat (used as a salve) that he renders himself to porcupine pelts picked clean by beetles, he provides medicine and ceremonial items for the tribe’s healers. But he said his gathering is at risk, after five tribes and the state signed an agreement that restricts it.

“It’s wrong,” he said.

And he may flaunt the new rules.

Grondin said he treats all forms of life with dignity. Much of his knowledge of the woods and waters of the eastern Upper Peninsula was absorbed from elders and relatives who taught him. He will take the branches to his garage for drying, along with hundreds of other things he’s preparing.

Grondin isn’t just a gatherer; he’s a prodigious hunter, tracker, fisherman, trapper and taxidermist who tans his own hides. He makes unprocessed tobacco for ceremonies. He builds drums from tanned deer hides stained with dye he makes from walnuts.

When he harvests birch bark, he is careful not to kill the tree. When he harvests a plant or kills an animal, he uses every scrap.

Under the new agreement, Grondin — for the first time in his life — needs a permit to gather. The deal restricts him to certain state lands and limits what and how much he can gather. He must make reports on what he has picked or cut.

The rationale is to conserve nature’s resources, but he doesn’t buy it.

“We have been preserving them forever,” he said. “It baffles my mind to get permits.” Having someone dictate where elements of a medicine are gathered could render it useless. “A healer could reject it,” he said.

Living in 2 worlds

Grondin is a tall, silver-haired man. He thinks before he speaks.

Born and raised in St. Ignace, the city on the Upper Peninsula side of the Mackinac Bridge, Grondin has traced relatives back to the 1600s. His grandfather owned Rabbit’s Back, a lumpy chunk of land on Lake Superior where the tribe’s newest casino sits. His father taught him the Anishinabewoon language and how to gather.

He inhabits parallel worlds. He was raised Catholic, flies an American flag and won a Purple Heart as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam. He worked for the state highway department until retirement. The kitchen of the family home, which is not on a reservation, is decorated in an apple motif.

But in his study, the Indian half of his life unfolds. A gnarling bear on the wall is surrounded by seven majestic deer heads and a stuffed hawk, bobcat, fox, raccoon and weasel. Beautifully tanned pelts of coyote, badgers, beavers, skunks and deer hang in a corner. From a closet he pulls the elaborate outfit he wears at powwows, which he fashioned partly from the head, claws and feathers of a bald eagle killed by a car.

Gathering is more than roots and berries for Grondin. He gets excited when he comes across fresh roadkill — a possum, raccoon or a rabbit — that’ll soon be in his freezer. He saves the animals’ toenails for rattles.

Grondin’s garage, too, is a place of wonder: a cave of powerful sweet smells and odd bits of hairy flesh scattered among things like his Sears riding mower and red tool chest.

Every corner holds a surprise. There is a jar of rendered bear fat he boiled himself, moose hooves from Canada, bear claws with hair still stuck to them in a baggie and beetles feasting on the underside of a porcupine pelt on the floor. Dried sage and sweetgrass hang in bunches from the ceiling.

He gathers cedar bark to sheath the roof of a tepee at the local American Indian museum. Cutting cedar bark will kill the tree. He typically takes about 10 cedars a year, he said, using leaves for tobacco, milling the wood for drums and turning the tiniest branches into buttons for ceremonial shirts.

“My dad taught me all this,” he said. “Our culture teaches us to take what we need, and leave the rest for others.”

Reasons for a change

The Sault tribe’s 23,000 adult members are voting until Oct. 17 on whether to approve the hunting-fishing-gathering agreement with the state; ballots went out the last week in September. Until the voting ends, said tribal spokesman Cory Wilson, the tribe has no comment.

The state sought the rules on gathering so tribes could have access to what they need, but would work with local forest managers on where and when to get it, said Mary Dettloff, spokeswoman for the Department of Natural Resources.

“We’re permitting them to do it, but asking their cooperation,” she said. “You can’t just go into the forest and cut down the trees.”

Frank Ettawageshik, chairman of the Little Traverse Bay tribe near Petoskey, said the agreement gives the tribes certainty that their hunting, fishing and gathering rights under a 1836 treaty with the U.S. government will be honored. He said the gathering rules would help protect resources for coming generations.

Grondin disagrees.

“I hope our tribe rejects it,” Grondin said. “Whatever the tribe requires, I’ll do. But I will still gather where I want.”

This is a very interesting story, but if the only problem is that tribal gatherers and hunters need a permit, I’m not sure it’s compelling. I don’t see the Inland settlement doing anything but guaranteeing the right to gather, subject to tribal regulations. If Soo Tribe members want to reject the settlement, that is their prerogative, but the alternative likely is costly and (possibly disastrous) litigation.

However, though it isn’t as spectacular a story as the Makah whaling controversy, the possibility that some Michigan Indians will reject the Inland settlement is similar to that case, where tribal people harvested a whale in violation of tribal and federal law. The notion of tribal people rejecting treaty rights and their various interpretations by courts, tribes, and non-Indian governments in favor of “pre-treaty” rights is an interesting legal, historical, and political question.