Shinnecock Coalition for Answers Wants Class-II Gaming now on Southampton Reservation; Independent Counsel Examining Pacts with Gateway Casino Resorts

Shinnecock pushes for smaller-scale gaming

12.21.2011

By Mark Harrington

Now that factions of the Shinnecock Indian Nation voted to block approval of gaming pacts with the tribe's Detroit backers, some on the Southampton reservation are making the strongest push yet to begin class-II gaming such as bingo.

The Shinnecocks' formal efforts in gaming thus far have focused on large-scale casinos with table games such as blackjack and poker -- casinos that require a state compact and layers of federal approval. Those ambitions are still years away.

But small-scale class-II gaming efforts such as bingo halls could take place on the reservation now, one former tribal leader said. He's one of many members urging Shinnecock leaders to use the tribe's federally recognized status to reconsider low-level gaming immediately.

"It's ridiculous that we would sit and wait another three to five years for gaming to come, when we could be doing small-scale gaming now," said Lance Gumbs, a former tribal trustee who is part of a group called the Shinnecock Coalition for Answers that last week championed the vote to block pacts with Gateway Casino Resorts.

Gumbs said he envisions a simple, even temporary structure erected on the tribal Powwow grounds in the center of the reservation for a bingo parlor. "We're talking about what the church is doing down the street," he said.

But Randy King, chairman of the tribal trustees, the Shinnecock's official government, said the tribe would continue on its course for larger-scale, class-III gaming.

"The current plan is to discuss alternative locations west of the reservation in more suitable areas," he said of the tribe's plans for casinos at Belmont Park and in Yaphank, among others. "We hope to discuss all of this with the governor's office shortly."

Tribal leaders have worked out arrangements with local politicians to keep gaming west of County Road 105 near Westhampton, with the promise of political support. Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) is among those party to the agreement.

"Congressman Bishop calls on the Shinnecock Nation to consult with the Southampton Town Board and other local government entities if they reach the decision as a tribe to pursue a Class II gaming facility such as a bingo hall on the reservation," said Bishop spokesman Oliver Longwell.

Eagerness to start some sort of gaming has reached such a level that the tribe was forced to issue a cease and desist letter to shop owners who attempted to open Internet gaming cafes on the reservation last month, several sources close to the tribe said.

On a higher level, the push for a tribal bingo parlor is a sign of impatience with the pace of economic progress on the cash-strapped reservation, and a push for broader participation in decision making.

On Monday night, the Shinnecock tribal council, an advisory body which has retained a private law firm to review the contracts with Gateway Casino Resorts that were voted down last week, met to discuss concerns about that vote.

Among them: that 1,100 Shinnecock members who do not live on the reservation were prevented from voting; only 36 hours' notice was given before the vote; and what the long-term implications of the vote itself were, according to a person who attended.

King said the trustees won't discuss or negotiate such internal tribal matters in the media.

Beverly Jensen, a spokeswoman for the tribe, said she believed last week's vote and the need for future discussions were part of the tribe's evolution now that federal recognition is in place.

"It's about the birth of a nation, for real," she said.

More on the Shinnecock Intra-Tribal Feud and Mike Malik's Wedge

A story published 4.13.2011 in the Southampton Press about the run-off election for Shinnecock Tribal Trustee between Fred Bess and Lance Gumbs, gives some insight into the current circumstances at play among the Shinnecock Indians.

Mr. Bess and Mr. Gumbs have butted heads in recent years over the direction the tribe’s casino effort should take, and the split votes hint at rival camps within the tribe over the proposal. Some tribe members have said that Mr. Bess is seen as the favorite of financial backer Michael Malik—a casino developer from Detroit who has spent millions of dollars to bankroll the tribe’s marathon legal battles with the government—a designation that has hurt his support among some tribe members and boosted it with others.

Mr. Gumbs, on the other hand, has been critical of some statements by Mr. Bess that the tribe would be interested in developing a casino near New York City, even if it meant the facility was in the Catskills—a consideration thought by some to have come from Mr. Malik. Mr. Gumbs has said the tribe should be focusing on possible sites in Suffolk County and closer to the tribe’s Shinnecock Neck reservation so that tribe members can work there. (Complete Story)

Anyone who's studied the partnerships that the Detroiters have with various Native American partners will see that a common strategy is "divide and conquer." Pit one party against the other to do your bidding and then buy the love. Toe the line and the good times will roll (paychecks, party time and private planes), speak your mind or consider alternatives, you'll be cut-off, locked out and maybe even attacked.

It's all about ROI with little regard for the body-count that's left in the wake. Rules and laws, they're made to be broken -- don't look back. Mike Malik's a developer, a deal broker. He's not a steward or a life partner. He's in and he's out without much regard for the long term or relationships. Whatever it takes. Look no further than his personal life to understand that.

To learn more about the split among the Shinnecock, also read "Shinnecock Indian Nation Leaders Split on Casino Path," a story first published 7.07.2009 in the Southampton Press. Sure enough, those who play by the Detroiters' rules get flown around in grand style; those who don't, Mr. Gumbs, are on their own.

Mr. Gumbs vision is for a casino nearer to the Shinnecock Reservation. Mr. Malik's vision is for up to three off-reservation casinos as close to Manhattan as possible. Remember, he bought a $5.4 million Central Park West penthouse in 2010. And for the first seven years a casino is open,  Malik and crew can make up to 30% of the take. After that, it's not his concern. Remember, he's in and out.

One might argue that the feuding is futile because at this point, without an additional act of Congress, neither vision is going to become reality. The Shinnecock currently have no trust lands -- not even their existing Reservation -- and no likely path to secure trust lands at this point.  Indian gaming under IGRA is only allowed on Indian lands held in trust by the U.S. Secretary of Interior.  See also: "It's Carcieri not Malik that poses Bigger Problems for the Shinnecock Nation."

CA Tribes & Alliance First Major Contributors to Gov. Jerry Brown's Tax Initiative

California tribes give $275,000 to Gov. Jerry Brown's initiative

12.20.2011

By Kevin Yamamura

California gambling tribes have given $275,000 toward Gov. Jerry Brown's new 2012 ballot initiative to raise taxes on sales and the wealthy, the first known major contribution to his effort.

The California Tribal Business Alliance and two of its member tribes have written checks to help Brown's cause, said the group's political director, David Quintana. The Alliance gave $75,000, while the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians each gave $100,000.

Brown's initiative would raise the sales tax by a half-cent and increase income taxes starting at $250,000 for individuals to raise an estimated $7 billion in the first fiscal year. Both would expire at the end of 2016.

"We wholeheartedly support this governor's vision for California," Quintana said. "We want to make sure the governor's vision can get before the voters so they can make a choice. We run the gamut of businesses, and if we don't have a healthy economy our businesses are going to suffer."

The California Tribal Business Alliance was active this year in opposing a bill backed by cardrooms and other gambling tribes to legalize Internet poker. Asked about the group's legislative interests as motivation, Quintana said, "No, what this is about is the state of California. We stand firmly behind his vision."

The contributions mark the first known major financial support to Brown's initiative campaign, though it has become difficult to track donations since the secretary of state's campaign finance website, Cal-Access, failed earlier this month.

The governor must collect 807,615 valid signatures of registered voters, an effort that could cost $3 million or more, depending on how many groups are circulating petitions at the same time.

Shinnecock Citizens Reject Gateway Casino Agreement

Shinnecock Citizens Reject Gateway Casino Agreement
12.20.2011

By Gale Courey Toensing

A majority of Shinnecock Indian Nation members rejected a controversial gaming agreement with its longtime financier, Detroit-based Gateway Casino Resorts, in a referendum December 15.

Members were asked to vote yes or no on authorizing the Board of Trustees to enter into a non-interference and enabling agreement that would hand over to the tribe’s gaming authority the ability to make all casino decisions with Gateway on the tribe’s behalf without any input from the members. The agreement was defeated by a vote of 153-121. The scandal-plagued Gateway has investing millions of dollars in the tribe over the past eight years.

The elected three-member Board of Trustees issued a statement indicating they intend to continue pursuing a relationship with Gateway. “While some may want to put their own spin on this vote, the elected leadership of the Shinnecock Indian Nation remains committed to the eight-year partnership we have had with Gateway and remains committed to pursuing economic opportunities for our people, including off-reservation gaming on Long Island. We have made tremendous strides in these last eight years and will not turn back now,” the trustees said. The board includes Chairman Randy King and trustees Gerrod T. Smith and Frederick C. Bess.

Opponents of the agreement were concerned that the contract with Gateway, which included among other things a waiver of tribal immunity, would erode the tribe’s sovereignty and would give Gateway too much of the tribe’s revenues. The proposed agreement stipulated that Gateway would keep 28 percent of monthly casino revenues.

Lance Gumbs, a former trustee, was a vocal opponent of the Gateway agreement, said he voted against the agreement. “Gateway needs to understand that they are not going to control our tribe,” Gumbs said.

A detailed story will follow.

What's Caused the Apparent Rift between Detroit Casino Syndicator Michael Malik and Shinnecock Lance Gumbs; and Who's Being Enriched by Malik?

Michael J. Malik, Sr.,
controversial co-founder,
Gateway Casino Resorts, L.L.C.

A News Day article reporting on the Shinnecock Indian Nation's rejection of a new contract with Detroit-based Gateway Casino Resorts and its co-founder Michael J. Malk, Sr., includes the following:

"Gateway needs to understand that they are not going to control our tribe," said Lance Gumbs, a former tribal trustee who voted against the pact.

During the last decade Lance Gumbs, then a trustee of the Shinnecock Indian Nation was one of those out front on efforts to gain Federal Recognition and pursue casino development.  However, in an unprecedented run-off earlier this year, Gumbs was ousted as Trustee by Fred Bess, a former Trustee. It's been reported that Bess is seen by some members of the Tribe as a tool of casino syndicator Malik.

Had Gumbs been a perceived as useful to Detroit casino syndicator Michael Malik, it's likely that Malik would have helped to ensure Gumbs remained in a leadership role.  However, had Gumbs fallen out of favor with Malik, it's likely Malik or his agents would have worked to replace Gumbs as trustee.

There's some suggestion that among other things, Gumbs believes the Shinnecock should undertake casino development closer to its Long Island Reservation.  Malik apparently wants a site closer to Manhattan.  A recent Shinnecock gaming update circulated included artist's renderings of a mega casino-entertainment development labeled "Governor's Island."

This past week, it's come to light that a war has been brewing among those on the Shinnecock's Long Island reservation.  And now it's clear that Gumbs was among those who stood against the Tribe signing a new go-forward contract with Malik's syndicate Gateway Casino Resorts, LLC, despite that Malik and fellow investors may have spent as much as $40 million helping the Shinnecock receive Federal Recognition and advancing schemes for casinos.  Last night, Shinnecock tribal members voted 121 to 153 against continuing the partnership with Malik's Gateway.

Lance R. Gumbs
tribal leader,
Shinnecock Indian Nation

That Malik has apparently been funneling payments to as many as 12 members of the Shinnecock Nation, is one of the things that reportedly caused some among the Shinnecock to distrust and be suspicious of Malik. Some individuals have been treated to trips out of state on Malik's personal G4 aircraft. Nearly 600 members of the tribe live on the reservation and hundreds more are enrolled as members.

• Why is Gumbs no longer a Shinnecock Nation Trustee?  What went on behind the scenes of the last election?
• Was Gumbs once the recipient of payments from Malik and then suddenly cut-off?
• If a rift occurred between Gumbs and Malik, what else was that about?
• Since Malik succeeded convicted felon Ivy Ong as the Tribe's partner, who has received payments, gifts, trips, honorariums or other enrichment from Malik, his affiliates or agents?  
• What roles do those individuals play, or have they played, with the Tribe?  
• How is paying off certain members of the Shinnecock Nation different than the payola Malik's one-time MotorCity Casino partner Herb Strather funneled to members of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe via its one-time Chair Glenn Marshall?

See also:

• Shinnecock Gumbs named to Newspaper's Power List Hall of Fame
• indianz.com: Trustee Lance Gumbs ousted by Shinnecock Nation Voters
• It's Carcieri not Malik that poses Bigger Problems for the Shinnecock Nation
• Statement by the Trustees of the Shinnecock Nation Following Thursday's Vote Denying them Authority to Contract with Detroit Casino Syndicator
• Distrust and Suspicion of Detroiter Michael Malik Cause Tribe to Reject Casino Syndicator, New Contract
• Shinnecock Vote Down gaming pact with Gateway Casino Resorts, reject longtime investors Michael Malik & Marian Ilitch
• Votes Are Counted & Shinnecock Nation Gives Thumbs Down to Contract with Michael Malik's Gateway Casino Resorts
• Artist's Renderings of Detroiters' Planned Shinnecock Casino Development at Belmont Race Track
• What They Won't Tell You: Insights on Gateway Casino Resorts, its Detroit Organizers and Their Plans for Shinnecock Casinos

Gambling Lobbyist Suggests his Scheme for a Waikiki Casino will "Fill Hawaii's Budget Hole"

Blogger's Note: John Radcliffe is a lobbyist for Detroit casino syndicators (investors affiliated with Detroit's MotorCity Casino and failed Indian casino schemes in NY & CA).  For nearly a decade, the Detroiters have been pushing schemes for a stand-alone Waikiki Casino. (learn more at bottom of this post)

Legalizing Gambling Will Be Good For Hawaii
12.20.2011

By John Radcliffe
Gambling Industry Lobbyist

John Radcliffe, Casino Gambling Lobbyist

In a recent Civil Beat editorial, Lowell Kalapa asked the question, “Can Legalized Gambling Fill Hawaii’s Budget Hole?” and then proceeded to argue against it.

The real answer to his question is: “Yes it Can!” Hawaii is the only American state outside of Utah that prohibits gaming. There are 311 million people in the other states and including Hawaii, but excluding Utah, 99.6% of them, live in states that permit gambling, and all of the residents of Utah have hundreds of casinos within easy driving distance of the borders of their state.

What we have here in Hawaii, instead of legal gaming, is a large, uncontrollable, criminal gambling enterprise that involves all sorts of bad elements — including, according to the news reports, rogue police officers. Estimates of the size of our homegrown, illegal, gambling operations range all the way up to one billion dollars per year, and history has shown that Prohibition creates crime, not lessens it. Legalizing gambling will have the same effect that legalizing alcohol had. It will lessen, or even end, that crime. How much “bathtub gin” do you think is made and sold here? None. But there is plenty of illegal gambling and none of it is taxed. If it were taxed, we in Hawaii would have about $50 million in tax revenue added annually.

But what about other, legal, gambling? Hawaii residents also spend about a billion dollars a year on that. Hawaii residents take a total of about 500,000 total trips to Las Vegas, and other gambling destinations each year with many of our citizens taking multiple trips per year. Boyd Gaming alone reported that it earns about $600,000,000 from Hawaii visitors each year. That means that Hawaii is contributing about one billion dollars to the economy of “neighboring” Nevada each year.

Economists like Mr. Kalapa tell us that each dollar spent in a local economy generates about 3.5 times as much, via what they call “the multiplier effect.” That is, the more money that is flying around in an economy, the more money it generates. The billion dollars that Hawaii residents are “contributing” to Nevada, adds about about $3.5 billion each year to their economy and takes from our own. We get nothing. No wonder they love us in Nevada!

All, or virtually all, of our mainland tourists come from states that already have casinos or other forms of gambling, and many of them favor our having one also. After all, there is virtually nothing for tourists to do after dark in Waikiki. No movie theaters. Almost no major entertainment venues. The Waikiki Improvement Association did some polling of our Asian visitors recently, and found that nearly 80% of Japanese, South Korean, and Chinese visitors would appreciate having a casino as an entertainment option in Waikiki.

The bill we had introduced in the legislature last year calls for limited gaming. One stand alone casino, only. All entities that would bid on that single license would have to ante up a $1 million, non-refundable fee, just to bid. The winning bidder would have to pay a $150 million “impact fee” to the state, and the casino itself would be subject to a General Excise Tax of 15%, a tax equal to more than three times the tax paid by all other tax payers in Hawaii. The economic modeling that we did indicates that the single, stand alone, casino would employ 3,660 directly, and produce another 5,717 jobs off-site, increasing the number of total jobs for Hawaii workers by 9,377.

Casinos are very labor intensive. The gross wages per year for those new jobs would amount to an aggregate of nearly $533 million in new money to the local economy. It is expected that the increased taxes from gaming fees, income taxes from employee wages, and from the ripple effect of new vendor jobs, etc., and from the General Excise taxes, will generate an added $86.3 million each year. None of this includes the investment costs for construction and etc. which are estimated to be well in excess of $300 million.

Ah, but what about the “social costs?” The emotional attacks that legalizing gambling will create crime, increase personal bankruptcy, and so on, are always a “hot button” item here in Hawaii. However, the facts in the rest of the country don’t bear them out. Both sides in the casino debate cite various academic studies in their interests, but the only source on that issue that ought to count is the Congressional National Gambling Impact Study Commission, and in its official study of those questions, it found that legalizing gambling has no significant effect on crime, personal bankruptcy, etc., either way. And the facts bear that out among the more than 307 million Americans in 49 states that have already ended prohibition of gambling.

So, to answer Mr. Kalapa’s question, “Can Legalized Gambling Fill Hawaii’s Budget Hole?” The answer is yes, it undoubtedly can help. No single “silver bullet” exists that will solve all of Hawaii’s need to have sufficient income forever. But it goes without saying, that Hawaii will need a wider variety of sources of income than we have now and no other industry is beating down the door. Casino gaming is something that ought to be tried.

Blogger's Note (cont.): Radcliffe represents Detroit gambling interests and his lobbying partner George A. "Red" Morris" represents Las Vegas- based Boyd Gaming Company. Radcliffe and others at his lobbying firm organized the so-called "Citizens for a Better Way" last spring; a front group financed by Radcliffe and his affiliates/clients to push the Waikiki casino scheme.  In April they dumped $40,000 into a sophisticated advertising campaign intended to pressure Hawaii Legislators into supporting their Casino bill. They failed and the individual they recruited to head the so-called citizens group filed a $387,000 bankruptcy after they failed to win legislative support for their Waikiki Casino. While Mr. Radcliffe pimps a casino, it is but one form of gaming. Hawaii could consider a State Lottery, bingo, sports betting and other alternatives without approving any Las Vegas-style casino in Waikiki. The Honolulu Police Department has stood steadfast against Radcliffe's attempts to legalize gambling. Radcliffe is a political confidante of Gov. Neil Abercrombie and began this most recent push for a Waikiki casino by being the first to contribute to Abercrombie's gubernatorial campaign. He's been pushing the administration to support a casino as a new source of  revenue.  After the Governor's election, Radcliffe helped ID and place key staff in the administration including those who've previously worked to legalize gambling in Hawaii. 

Hawaii Tax Foundation Prez Poses Questions about Legalized Gambling in Hawaii

Can Legalized Gaming Fill Hawaii's Budget Hole
12.18.2011

By Lowell Kalapa
President, Tax Foundation of Hawaii

At its most recent meeting, the State Council on Revenues downgraded its outlook for Hawaii’s economy by dropping its forecast of economic growth from 6.7% to 5.2% for the current fiscal year.

Although the overall growth rate in general fund tax revenues was pegged at 14.5%, 4.3 points are attributable to the catch up of the delay in state income tax refunds from two years ago and 5 points are attributed to the changes in state tax laws that are expected to produce about $200 million less in new revenues than the legislature had counted on when drawing up its financial plan for the fiscal biennium.

These latter tax law changes are good only for the current and next fiscal year and, therefore, added revenues from that source will disappear in fiscal year 2014.

It should also be noted that the Council’s adoption of the added revenues from tax law changes is substantially less than what the legislature had assumed when they adopted those changes. The difference amounts to approximately $100 million for each of the two fiscal years. Therefore, even without any spending restrictions or other adjustments to the recently approved biennium budget, the state-spending plan will be under water by almost $200 million over the fiscal biennium.

Given that situation, lawmakers will be searching for additional revenues in order to avoid making additional reductions in spending. The will to adopt additional tax increases will be absent given the fact that all legislators will be up for reelection in 2012 as a result of the decennial reapportionment of the legislative districts.

Thus, many observers believe that the legislature will actually turn its attention to a number of gaming bills that were introduced during the 2011 session and to some extent received considerable attention. There is no doubt that gaming might be looked upon as a potential resource to fill in the budget gap.

On the other side, again, is the fact that next year is an election year and the public is deeply divided on the issue of gaming, especially in the House where each representative has a smaller constituency in his or her district and where a few votes one way or the other could win or lose the election. In addition, as with all levels of government pushing to downsize payrolls, the additional monitoring and regulation of gaming activities may work against adoption of the activity if it means added personnel costs for the public sector even though there may be additional revenues from gaming.

Then there are those who are concerned about the potential social problems that gaming in Hawaii would create. We all chuckle every time someone mentions going to “Vegas” or enumerates the number of trips made to that ninth Hawaiian Island. It is a matter of fact that Hawaii people like to gamble and at least the time and expense of traveling to Las Vegas stands as a barrier to those who financially cannot swing the trip and probably can’t afford to lose the money.

The question that lawmakers and taxpayers need to ask is whether or not the additional revenues lawmakers believe will come from adding gaming to the list of revenue resources will outweigh the additional costs that will come with gaming. While gaming, per se, is not a tax, it has tax implications from the standpoint that it will require additional public programs - those that are needed to operate the gaming activities including the legal enforcement and those that will be needed to address the social and financial implications.

Another consideration is the amount of participation that will be needed to make a gaming industry a lucrative source of public revenue. Unlike its counterparts on the mainland which allow gaming, Hawaii is not contiguous with other jurisdictions where residents from other states or counties can cross state lines to participate in the gaming activity of another state or county. Think of it in the reverse of Hawaii residents traveling to Las Vegas. Will the cost, time and distance be attractive enough to gamble in Hawaii?

Finally, the adoption of any form of gaming in Hawaii may open the door to forms other than what may be authorized by the legislature because of the Hawaiian sovereignty issue giving rise to those other forms of gaming on native Hawaiian enclaves such as Hawaiian Homes Lands.

Shinnecock Gumbs named to Newspaper's Power List Hall of Fame

Lance Gumbs, Shinnecock Indian Nation

The Shinnecock Indians would have been among the first aboriginal people to meet the settlers from Europe. Yet despite a long-documented relationship with the United States, the Shinnecock Nation was only finally “recognized” last year. This long-awaited designation was in no small part due to the unrelenting efforts of Lance Gumbs, a local entrepreneur and former tribal trustee who is largely credited with moving the recognition process to the front burner at the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. Economically and socially, federal recognition means many things to a tribe, but the most high-profile aspect involves the tribe’s right to secure a Class III gaming license on its territory or off-reservation land held in trust by the U.S. government. The issue of gaming has placed Gumbs and the current leadership of Shinnecock in the spotlight for the enormous economic potential for both the Shinnecock people and the surrounding municipalities that are suddenly vying to curry favor with the long-ignored tribe. Never one to shrink from conflict or defend the ancestral right of his people, Gumbs is uniquely suited to help lead the charge until a Shinnecock-owned and operated gambling enterprise is itself fully recognized.

It's Carcieri not Malik that poses Bigger Problems for the Shinnecock Nation

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) only allows for gaming on Indian lands held in trust by the U.S. Secretary of Interior. The Shinnecock Indian Nation currently has no land in trust with the Secretary. The lands designated as the Shinnecock Indian Nation reservation on Long Island near Southampton, New York, are not held in trust with the Secretary of Interior. Today, the Shinnecock Nation has no land eligible for Indian Gaming under IGRA -- not even the land designated as the Nation's Long Island reservation.

This presents big, perhaps insurmountable hurdles for the Shinnecock Nation and its Detroit casino backers.

That the Shinnecock Nation would be eligible to have land taken into trust for the purpose of developing a casino, or for any other purpose, appears unlikely at this time.

It was revealed this week that developers behind the Shinnecock Indian Nation's casino schemes had planned to introduce "Mandatory Acquisition" legislation in Congress next year. This suggests tribal leaders and their casino partners now realize they have bigger problems relative to the U.S. Supreme Court's Carcieri decision.  And in fact, it appears Shinnecock leaders have abandoned the attempt by other tribes to advance a so-called Carcieri Fix in Congress.

SCOTUS: Carcieri v. Salazar

In Carcieri, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the Secretary can’t take land into trust for tribes that weren’t “under federal jurisdiction as of 1934.” This has been read to mean that only tribes recognized in 1934 can have land taken into trust. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a tribe has to be on the list of recognized tribes in 1934, but must at least have had a relationship with the federal government as a tribal entity as of 1934.

The Shinnecock Nation's Carcieri problems are made worse by Interior Department acknowledgments published in 2010.

Interior, in granting federal recognition to the Shinnecock in 2010, made several findings that pose Carcieri problems for the Shinnecock. Most relevant, the Interior Department found that it never had a pre-existing relationship with the Shinnecock prior to their recent federal acknowledgment. The Final Determination for Federal Recognition of the Tribe published 6.18.2010 states:

The Department “finds that evidence in the record does not show that the Federal Government established, by its actions, a relationship between the United States and the petitioner [Shinnecock Tribe] as an Indian tribe at any time… .” “…the Department was aware of the Shinnecock of Long Island and held internal discussions as to whether the Department should establish a Federal relationship with them, but the Department took no action to do so.” “The Federal Government explicitly rejected the opportunity to establish a relationship with the petitioner [Shinnecock], sometimes stating that the petitioner [Shinnecock] was the State of New York’s responsibility.”

Clearly the Interior Department found that it had no previous relationship with the Shinnecock Indians, and thought that they were New York’s responsibility. The Shinnecock viewed this as a problem and offered additional evidence to try and show a relationship but the Interior Department rejected that evidence as showing a previously existing relationship. Thus, the Shinnecock wouldn’t have been “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. So, Carcieri restrictions apply to the Shinnecock Nation.

Under current federal law the Shinnecock are not eligible for federal trust land, thus unable to open an IGRA casino.

That the Shinnecock would be ineligible to have any lands taken into trust by the U.S. Secretary of Interior, for gaming purposes or otherwise, seems only likely if Congress enacts new legislation specifically allowing such -- that remains highly unlikely.

Throughout the last decade the casino syndicators behind the Shinnecock schemes attempted numerous times -- both forthright and sneaky -- to have Congress enact special legislation that would have allowed the Shinnecock or the casino syndicator's other tribal partners to establish casinos.

Despite spending hundreds of millions on lobbying and campaign contributions, the Detroit casino syndicators failed, repeatedly. The only winners were the lawyers, lobbyists and politicians who willingly took millions from the perennial cockeyed optimist who managed the syndicate -- and apparently the handful of tribal leaders on his payroll. The losers remain the naive tribes at-large and economically depressed communities that pin their hopes for the future on the anticipated riches of gaming hopelessly dangled before them, like a carrot to a hungry horse.

See also:

• To Bypass Carcieri and Other Off-Reservation Casino Hurdles, Detroiters Plan Introduction of "Mandatory Acquisition Legislation" in Congress
• Obama repeats support for 'Carcieri fix' on Indian land rights | The Providence Journal
• What They Won't Tell You: Insights on Gateway Casino Resorts, its Detroit Organizers and Their Plans for Shinnecock Casinos