kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
July 1st, 2015 at 8:21:01 PM permalink
All hail Bob Nersesian....the AP's guardian angel and best friend.

Just read on BJ21 that Bob is at it again, working his magic to level the playing field for advantage players. The Arizona case which was an appeal of an earlier ruling that went the same way could be a game changer. It could put an end to Indian Casinos, complete with their own tribal police departments and courts, abusing patrons rights and then crying immunity when they are sued. Way to go Mr. N.

Just to be clear, this is not a win as far as the case. It just allows the case to be heard, throwing out the immunity claim.

Links to a couple articles of the case/decision

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jul/01/gamblers-abuse-test-sovereignty-tribal-casinos/

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/gamb070115.htm
zoobrew
zoobrew
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
July 1st, 2015 at 9:14:10 PM permalink
You know that the AZ tribe will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court. Also Indian casinos didn't lose immunity status only an individual working for the casino. Want to guess how much money you are going to get from an Indian casino worker and collecting the award could also be challenging.
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 4:20:20 AM permalink
Quote: zoobrew

You know that the AZ tribe will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court. Also Indian casinos didn't lose immunity status only an individual working for the casino. Want to guess how much money you are going to get from an Indian casino worker and collecting the award could also be challenging.



You are right about individual defendants and the ability to collect, but I hope this starts a wave of work towards leveling the playing field as far as civil rights go between NA and other casinos. If you let residents of areas other than your tribal land onto the land to gamble, the protection from what is otherwise illegal behavior should go with them. If you want to have your own laws, stay on your own land and don't open casinos and other businesses that cater to non-Indians.

Taking it a step further, NA casino compacts should be redone as they are renewed, or sooner, to make them report on the same things other casinos have to report on in a given state.

Just having a casino compact shouldn't give anyone the right to violate civil rights or circumvent gaming regulations.
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 8:26:21 AM permalink
It's called "Indian country" for a reason.

Sovereign immunity should also apply to individuals working within the scope of their tribal employment.

Any claims arising out of activity on tribal property, other than those allowed by tribal compact, should only be litigated in tribal court.

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.
"What, me worry?"
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 8:58:48 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.


Then visitors from the United States should be allowed to speak with the U.S. Consul in that country before any actions are taken against them. Unless, perhaps, it is a country that does not wish to maintain favorable relations with the U.S.

Quote: MrV

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.



IANAL, but I believe that is done in many cases, particularly when the residents of the other country have their assets in the U.S., such as in a U.S. insured bank.
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 9:58:08 AM permalink
It's a jurisdictional issue, concerning a court's power to hear a matter.

Complicated stuff.
"What, me worry?"
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11596
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 10:25:19 AM permalink
To me it would make sense for the tribes to just make laws against advantage play. That way they could discourage AP play and those that continue to do it could be prosecuted and punished under Indian law.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 10:33:49 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

It's called "Indian country" for a reason.

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.



I disagree with you here, MrV. The idea was to not force our values and systems on the Native Americans. It was a 'concession' to allow them to govern themselves on their own land....up to a point.

But when we allow them to build casinos, cater to and draw the public from out side their little 'roped off area' it is them that needs to make concession that the 'outside publics' rights are respected and receive fair treatment and not some kangaroo court where the tribal Police and judge are related.

Without that kind of concession by them to protect the 'outside citizens" that they want and need to draw in, we need to stop all this nice pretend crap and go hard core sovereignty. People will need a passport to get in and they will need a passport to get out. If they want sorvereignty fine, let's see how that effects their little goal mine.

We have given them a license to print money. I am not in favor of giving them a license to steal and abuse people, on top of that.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 2nd, 2015 at 10:56:57 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.



Quote: Doc

IANAL, but I believe that is done in many cases, particularly when the residents of the other country have their assets in the U.S., such as in a U.S. insured bank.


Tribal Sovereignty would dictate that "the other country" doesn't have their assets in the U.S., but in their own country.......the foreign bank operating in the US argument doesn't work for me because the tribe isn't operating the casino off the reservation in the USA. This is closer to filing a lawsuit against a Canadian Casino in a US Court. I doubt anyone would think that was appropriate under international law.

If Tribal Sovereignty is held to be lawful, and I think it is tough to argue otherwise, you can't argue anything done on tribal land is subject to US laws. You may not agree with the Sovereignty of tribal lands, but that is where the battle lies, not with trying to impose US laws on a foreign country.

Alternatively, you can get the States to change their compacts with the tribes, but my guess is they aren't particularly interested in preserving the rights of AP's. If you had regular ploppies being cheated by improperly run games or being back roomed for winning without the use of edge sorting or card counting, you might get some state congressman's ear.

The host States (e.g. their State Assemblies) are more interested in the revenue stream coming from the tribes than preserving the rights of a very small segment of the player pool that in their eyes is at a minimum "gaming the system" and at worst "cheating".

Those inside the gambling world have diverse opinions of AP's, but inside the walls of a State Assembly or out on the street interviewing John Q Public, I just don't think the AP's are going to get that much support. That may be right or wrong in someone's opinion.......but I think it is reality.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:03:41 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Without that kind of concession by them to protect the 'outside citizens" that they want and need to draw in, we need to stop all this nice pretend crap and go hard core sovereignty. People will need a passport to get in and they will need a passport to get out. If they want sorvereignty fine, let's see how that effects their little goal mine.


This seems appropriate.......I wonder why you aren't required to present a passport when entering the reservation? Of course that would make operating as an AP without being identified very tough :-).......and don't get me wrong here, I am not an anti-AP type of guy.......if AP's can carve out a living playing the cat & mouse game, great for them......and I respect the skills required to do it successfully over a long period of time.
coilman
coilman
  • Threads: 139
  • Posts: 1159
Joined: Jan 29, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:08:50 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj



Without that kind of concession by them to protect the 'outside citizens" that they want and need to draw in, we need to stop all this nice pretend crap and go hard core sovereignty. People will need a passport to get in and they will need a passport to get out. If they want sorvereignty fine, let's see how that effects their little goal mine.

We have given them a license to print money. I am not in favor of giving them a license to steal and abuse people, on top of that.



When you use the US DOLLAR as your currency in your sovereign nation maybe just maybe they should follow that country's rules

Unless the do PRINT their own currency and well folks coming to play can trade in US dollars for it and revert back winnings ( at a nice discount I may add) to US dollars again
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:17:23 AM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

Tribal Sovereignty would dictate that "the other country" doesn't have their assets in the U.S., but in their own country.......the foreign bank operating in the US argument doesn't work for me because the tribe isn't operating the casino off the reservation in the USA.


I rather suspect that the tribes and their members keep most of their money in banks operating in the U.S. and insured by the U.S. government -- places like Bank of America or Chase Manhattan. If you want to sue them for damages, it seems reasonable to sue them in the U.S., where the courts can order forfeiture of the funds. That's what I was referring to.
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:36:22 AM permalink
Quote: Doc

I rather suspect that the tribes and their members keep most of their money in banks operating in the U.S. and insured by the U.S. government -- places like Bank of America or Chase Manhattan.



Do they know that they no longer own Manhattan....that they sold it for a few beads and trinkets and stuff? They should keep their money in their own bank...Bank of Native America. :)

I am having a little fun, but the point is that they want it both ways. They want the benefits of our way life, but then want to claim 'sovereign nation' when it benefits them. Can't have it both ways.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:46:42 AM permalink
Quote: Doc

I rather suspect that the tribes and their members keep most of their money in banks operating in the U.S. and insured by the U.S. government -- places like Bank of America or Chase Manhattan. If you want to sue them for damages, it seems reasonable to sue them in the U.S., where the courts can order forfeiture of the funds. That's what I was referring to.


I hear you, but where you put your money has no bearing on who governs your activity. If I put some money in a Canadian Bank, I don't expect to be subject to a Canadian Subpeona or the jurisdiction of a Canadian Court.........do you?
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 11:51:48 AM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

If I put some money in a Canadian Bank, I don't expect to be subject to a Canadian Subpeona or the jurisdiction of a Canadian Court.........do you?

Maybe or maybe not you. Depending on whether they have an extradition treaty and what its terms are. But your funds are sure as shooting subject to seizure. Just ask anybody in the U.S. or elsewhere with funds in a Greek or Cypriot financial institution.
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 12:03:37 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

If I put some money in a Canadian Bank, I don't expect to be subject to a Canadian Subpeona or the jurisdiction of a Canadian Court.........do you?


If someone in Canada sues me in a Canadian court and wins, I expect they would have recourse to take funds I have on deposit in a Canadian bank. As for a subpoena, I could ignore it (unless there were some offense for which I could be extradited), but if I traveled to Canada, I could certainly be taken to their court.

My original point was that I think it is not unusual to bring suit against a foreigner or foreign corporation in U.S. court and collecting. I suspect Native Americans are accustomed to being held accountable in U.S. courts. Wasn't the original question about a suit against tribal individuals for wrongs they committed against U.S. individuals?
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 12:06:14 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

This seems appropriate.......I wonder why you aren't required to present a passport when entering the reservation?

That is farfetched in an era when tens of thousands of people cross both U.S. land borders daily in both directions without having to deal with such archaic and obsolete formalities.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 12:09:26 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

My original point was that I think it is not unusual to bring suit against a foreigner or foreign corporation in U.S. court and collecting.

Bringing suit is never an obstacle. Proceeding with one and maybe winning are totally another. Just ask those who have sued Iran over assets and hostage relatives for the assets that the U.S. has seized.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12164
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 12:29:00 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

It's called "Indian country" for a reason.

Sovereign immunity should also apply to individuals working within the scope of their tribal employment.

Any claims arising out of activity on tribal property, other than those allowed by tribal compact, should only be litigated in tribal court.

Tribes are considered as being their own country, with their own laws.

Allowing the suit to continue would be akin to filing suit in a court in the USA against residents of another country, complaining about conduct which happened in the other country.



Is the sovereignty every bit as sovereign as Mexico or Canada?

What happens if they kill a non native? You don't have to have a trial on tribal land do you?

I assume there are plenty of back and forth agreements.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 12:42:01 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine


I assume there are plenty of back and forth agreements.



That is sort of my point. It is one thing to have an arrangement where yeah, you can handle the small situation involving your own people that occur in this 'roped off area'.

But in my opinion, the situation changes when you build a casino and open it to and encourage non-native patrons to cross over and patronize you. At that point the 'agreement' needs to be upgraded to insure the protections of those you are inviting in. If you are unwilling to do that, you shouldn't have the benefit of outside business. Let's put up a border and allow the casino to only serve the native members that reside within the boundaries and see how that works out for them. You can't JUST get the benefits of something and then scream sovereign immunity at other times. It has to be a two way street.
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
July 2nd, 2015 at 1:20:13 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

That is sort of my point. It is one thing to have an arrangement where yeah, you can handle the small situation involving your own people that occur in this 'roped off area'.

But in my opinion, the situation changes when you build a casino and open it to and encourage non-native patrons to cross over and patronize you. At that point the 'agreement' needs to be upgraded to insure the protections of those you are inviting in. If you are unwilling to do that, you shouldn't have the benefit of outside business. Let's put up a border and allow the casino to only serve the native members that reside within the boundaries and see how that works out for them. You can't JUST get the benefits of something and then scream sovereign immunity at other times. It has to be a two way street.



I agree--if they treat U S residents unfairly, put up a fence and let only Indians cross the border into Indian land. They can have their casino--heck, they can have whatever they want--they just can't have non-Indian US residents on their land.

If they really could just "do what they wanted" there would be no need for compacts, involvement of gaming commissions, etc.--they could just set a casino up anywhere. There is Indian land in Texas; how come there is only one slot place here?

They've been given more power in these agreements than they should have. No one had to cede all the power to them if they didn't have all of it to start with...
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11596
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 1:21:22 PM permalink
"Each tribe sets the rules on how local and federal law enforcement operate on the reservation, within limits. The FBI has exclusive jurisdiction for about 20 serious crimes on Indian land such as murder, rape, robbery, etc., and will come in and take over any investigation when and if those crimes occur."

Interesting article:

Link
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
Perdition
Perdition
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 610
Joined: Sep 3, 2013
July 2nd, 2015 at 1:29:06 PM permalink
Coming soon slot machines that accept Wampum.
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
July 2nd, 2015 at 1:29:35 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

There is Indian land in Texas; ?



Boy THAT is like twice removed from United States. :0 LOL.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 5477
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
July 2nd, 2015 at 1:31:59 PM permalink
Quote: coilman

When you use the US DOLLAR as your currency in your sovereign nation maybe just maybe they should follow that country's rules



Like Zimbabwe?

Quote: coilman

Unless the do PRINT their own currency and well folks coming to play can trade in US dollars for it and revert back winnings ( at a nice discount I may add) to US dollars again



What exactly do you think that cheques and TITOs are?
May the cards fall in your favor.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 2nd, 2015 at 2:41:36 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

That is farfetched in an era when tens of thousands of people cross both U.S. land borders daily in both directions without having to deal with such archaic and obsolete formalities.


Are you referring to "legal" crossings? Last time I crossed into the US from Canada, it was a produce a passport or I wasn't proceeding.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 2nd, 2015 at 3:06:22 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

My original point was that I think it is not unusual to bring suit against a foreigner or foreign corporation in U.S. court and collecting.


My point was that without the Foreign Corporation doing business in the US, this would be highly unusual.

You can't sue the City of Dreams Casino (Manilla) in a US Court because you were back roomed in the Philippines unless the provisions of a treaty between the Philippines and US says you can. No such treaties exist with the Tribes. There is no jurisdiction regardless of whether Melco International (CoD owner) has money at Bank of America.

Tribal Casinos aren't operating in the US, so US Courts have no jurisdiction. I get that some here are upset about Tribal Sovereignty, but that is the law. If you don't like how the law operates, you have the choice to not enter a tribal reservation.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 2nd, 2015 at 3:11:14 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Maybe or maybe not you. Depending on whether they have an extradition treaty and what its terms are. But your funds are sure as shooting subject to seizure. Just ask anybody in the U.S. or elsewhere with funds in a Greek or Cypriot financial institution.


And US bank depositors can lose money in US Banks over the FDIC limits as well......what is your point? The Cyprus and Greek situations were a failure of their banking systems not someone seizing assets relating to a legal dispute.
  • Jump to: