STATUS

BASIS FOR OPPOSTION

DRAFT EIS

NCIP NEWSLETTERS

UPCOMING EVENTS

NEGATIVE IMPACTS

ARCHIVE GOV. POSITIONS

DOCUMENTS OF INTEREST

IGRA Part 151

WHAT YOU CAN DO

RELATED LINKS

HOME



 BACKGROUND

NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH!

INDEX

1) Brief Miwok history Jul '04

2) Who are the Real Ione Band of Miwoks Dec '06

3) Indian Gaming History Jul '04

4) Time Line CA. Gaming Jul '04

5) Indian Trust Land Acquisition Dec '06

Brief Miwok and California Indian History

This piece is not intended to be the definitive history of California and the Miwoks but will serve to give you some background of how we got to the present situation. There is a much more detailed article referenced on the related links page.

Archeologists generally divide the Miwok Indians into coastal, lake and sierra groupings during the early 1800’s when the settlement of California began in earnest. After numerous conflicts with the Spanish and other settlers, a series of devastating epidemics struck the Miwok villages. These plagues of smallpox and malaria significantly reduced the number of Miwoks and many of the survivors relocated to the relative safety of the foothills. However, the Gold Rush and the subsequent agricultural development spelled the end of the traditional Miwok way of existence.

The Federal government, in 1851, appointed three commissioners to negotiate treaties with California Indians. By 1852, 18 treaties had been negotiated with 139 tribes setting aside 7,488,000 acres of land, or approximately one-third of California, for Indian use. The treaties met with hostility in California, where the legislature instructed the United States senators from California to oppose ratification of the treaties. In February 1852, President Millard Fillmore submitted the 18 treaties to the United States Senate for ratification. The California senators were recognized and the Senate went into secret session to discuss the treaties. During this session, the Senate failed to ratify the treaties, and by order, they were placed in secret files, where they remained for the next 53 years.

In 1871, the United States Congress declared that it would no longer negotiate treaties with American Indians. Although the United States Government failed to ratify the treaties, it did continue the policy of setting up reservations and moving the Indians to them. However, no attempt was made to negotiate new treaties. A major tool the government used in trying to assimilate Indians during this time was the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes Act. The act itself provided that each Indian living on a reservation would receive a 160-acre allotment of land per family unit, and each single man would receive 80 acres if the reservation had enough land. If there was not enough land, other provisions were made.

With the rediscovery, in 1905, of the 'lost' treaties of 1851, public opinion began to favor the Indians. Between 1906 and 1910, legislation was passed appropriating funds which were used to purchase many small tracts of land in central and north central California for the landless Indians of those areas. These tracts today are the bulk of those Indian lands known as 'rancherias.' "

After World War II the government decided to return to the assimilation programs of the past and to "get out of the Indian business" by ending its relationship with Indian tribes. Congress began to urge the federal government to "liberate" Indians from reservations and liquidate tribal governments. Thus the United States government implemented its Termination and Relocation programs. The Termination Act wanted to eliminate special tribal status and turn jurisdiction over the Indians to state and local authorities. Congress subsequently adopted a series of laws implementing the policy of Termination.

In 1958, the Rancheria Termination Act was enacted. The law provided for the distribution of all Rancheria land and assets and directed that a plan be prepared for each Rancheria outlining to whom and how the assets shall be distributed. Such a plan, when approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and accepted by the participant, became the operating program under which title was transferred from the Government to the Indians. While some plans were developed and termination proceeded, many of the plans were not implemented. Some of the California Rancheria and Reservation tribes, were severed from the federal relationship in this process. Ten of the original terminated rancherias left Indian ownership by 1974.

In1959, the problems with termination were temporarily forgotten. "In that year, the Indian Claims Commission issued an order stating that the Indians of California had aboriginal title, as of 1853, to approximately 64 million acres of California land west of the Sierra Nevada." (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1966:20) A settlement of $29,100,000 was awarded as redress. By 1970, the census showed that there were 91,018 Indians in California. This number did not differentiate between California Indians and Indians who came here from other states. In 1972, 120 years after the Indians signed the 18 lost treaties, 60,000 California Indians received $633 each as compensation for land covered by the treaties. Some Indians refused the payment, and some failed to cash the check, but others who had waited for generations and had spent much time and money trying to resolve the issue accepted the payment. The land claims case was finally over.

IGRA and Prop 1A were intended to attempt to mitigate some of the injustices of the past and allow gaming as a path to independence on Indian reservations. They were not designed or intended as a method to permit roll reversal and the implementation of new injustices by off-reservation land acquisition and the establishment of a casino at whatever location some Mississippi Carpetbagger thinks might be profitable. Being anti-casino is not being anti-Indian and anyone suggesting such is confusing the issues for their own advantage.

Today because of the potentially enormous sums of money involved, the process of Indian land acquisition is nearly indistinguishable from Indian Gaming. Some tribes are being recognized as landless, some on rancherias and others are having land appropriated for them by an act of congress.

INDEX

Who are the Real Ione band of Miwoks

The truth behind the disputed leadership of the Ione band of Miwoks is not easy to come by. Some facts are agreed upon but given different interpretations and some documentation that would be useful is not available to NCIP. If you can provide documentation or information that contradicts this interpretation, we will gladly correct the record. Meanwhile, the Ione band of Miwoks current claim of being a “restored landless Tribe” is slowly wending its way towards federal court where the issue of legal tribal Leadership will most certainly be addressed as part of the overall process.

Amy Dutchske was during this time frame acting regional director, Sacramento Regional Office, BIA. Her grandfather's nephew (her second cousin) is a man named Harold Burris. Mr. Burris' sister, Bernice (Burris) Villa was married to the Ione Band's Tribal Leader Nicolas Villa, Sr. and because of that relationship was allowed to live with his family on the Tribe's land base on Jackson Valley Road. In 1988, Harold Burris, his daughters Pamela Burris & Carol Boring and half sister, Callie Allen and her daughter Jeannette Allen, sued the tribe in State Court in an attempt to gain control of the Jackson Valley Road Property. His efforts were rebuffed by the State Appellant court which ordered Amador County Superior Court to vacate their ruling that the land was private property. This Appellant Court decision was upheld by a federal court ruling in 1991 that the land in question was officially designated as "Indian Country". The term Indian Country is an ambiguous term that from what we can determine does not appear to confirm any particular rights or requirements under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and is not synonymous with reservation or even Rancheria.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs sent a memo to all of its regional offices asking for identification of the tribes which were being provided services between 1977 & 1981. Since the Ione Band had not requested services during that period, the tribe was inadvertently left off the list of Federally recognized Indian Tribes. Between 1989 and 1994, the tribal leaders led by Nicolas Villa, Jr., Chief/Chairman sought to correct this clerical error and thus the standing of the Tribe. As a result of their efforts, the Assistant Secretary of Interior clarified the Tribe’s status on March 22, 1994. This was accomplished by placing the Tribe on the list of federally recognized Indian entities and by providing a letter addressed to Nicolas Villa Jr. Chief of the Ione Band of Miwoks reaffirming the Tribe and his role as Hereditary Leader. This letter also addressed the Jackson Valley Road land as the Tribal land base. At the time of this reaffirmation, The Ione Band of Miwoks had a functioning Tribal governing process and an established membership criterion. It is important to remember that the Tribe had pursued clarification of their status as a Tribal entity outside the venue and controls of the Sacramento Regional BIA Office.

However, the use of the word “reaffirmed” by the Assistant Secretary of Interior is worth noting. The word is not defined in federal Indian law. Why the Secretary failed to use the word “recognized” has now become a key issue in whether or not the Tribe is officially recognized. Amador County has taken the position that the Tribe does not have status as an officially recognized Tribe, while the State’s opinion assumes that do. These opinions are contained in the legal documents located in chronological order on the Basis for Oppostion page of this website and are well worth the time invested to read them. However, once a Tribe is recognized if that was what occurred and gains status as a Sovereign Nation the BIA no longer has the authority to interfere with the Tribal leadership and in any case the United Auburn Indian Community Restoration Act is a law that legally applies only to that Auburn Indian Group and the use of it with regards to the Ione Band is simply bogus. Undeterred by these legalities, the Regional BIA office pursued an agenda designed to gain control of The Ione Band of Miwoks. In the reorganizing process, the Regional BIA established an enrollment committee that was dominated by non-members, without the consult of the core population at the date of reaffirmation. Thus, from the outset, the Regional BIA assured the result would be a drastic change of character of the Tribe, something strongly discouraged by official Indian policy [Privileges and Immunities Technical Amendment of 1994 to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934]. Between August 1994 and July 2002, the Regional BIA continued to pursue change of the Tribe’s leadership. The BIA installed an Interim Council on September 28, 1996 (the Ramey group) without ever responding to the objections of the original tribal leadership which is in clear violations of Federal Indian law prohibiting BIA interference in tribal governments. The Regional BIA classified undocumented, even unidentified persons as eligible for membership in the Ione band. The process included advertising for potential members, placing Indians on the membership list without their knowledge and including terminated Indians on the rolls which is a violation of Federal Law. This blatant Regional BIA ballot stuffing process achieved the desired results and the original and legal Tribal Leadership was changed in an August 2002 election.

The currently BIA recognized but disputed leadership of the Ione Band of Miwoks, under Matt Franklin, is currently claiming to be landless and attempting in concert with “Bonus Gaming” (the third in a revolving series of outside investors) to build a casino in Plymouth. However, the Washington, D.C. Central Office of the BIA has been made aware of the irregularities and alleged illegalities involved in this affair. Additonally, NCIP was able to hand deliver to recently confirmed Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, an extensive briefing packet detailing the irregularities surrounding the Ione Band of Miwoks and their proposed casino. The Secretary has promised to look into the matter.

A question has arisen as to why did the BIA initially protest the reaffirmation of the Real Ione band of Miwoks in 1994 but wait until 1995 to begin their attempts to reorganize the Tribal Leadership? The answer may be in the manner in which federal Indian funds are processed!

The process works this way :
1. Congress expressly designates federal funds for a tribe.
2. The mandated funds become available October 1 of each year.
3. Then the Office of Budget & Management transfers the funds to General Accounting Office who in turn informs the Washington, D.C office of the BIA that the funds are to be transferred to the BIA January 2 of each year.
4. The local BIA receives the actual funds about April 1 of each year.

Since the tribe had been restored in 1994, FY 1994-95 funding would not be available for use pertaining to the restored Tribe. The BIA received its first Congressionally mandated funds for this tribe in FY 1995-96. Hereditary Tribal Leader Nick Villa has alleged that while the BIA was charging the expenses occurred to illegally remove him from Tribal leadership to future funds set aside for The Ione Miwoks, they were at the same time denying the Ione Miwoks services claiming that they had no funds. This abuse of Federal Funds is one part of the Federal Investigation that we believe is now taking place in regards to the Sacramento Regional Office of the BIA.

INDEX

Indian Gaming History

A little historical background on the development of tribal gambling operations may help in understanding how California has come to reach it’s current quagmire.

Early Supreme Court decisions wrestled with the dilemma of resolving the conflict of the nomadic existence of Native Americans Indians with the concepts of property rights existent in established English and Spanish law principals.

The compromise involved establishment of segregated reservations with separate rules of law. This practice was further developed in a 1831 Supreme Court decision when Chief Justice Marshall defined tribes as “domestic dependent nations”. Later court decisions affirmed and expanded on Indian inherent sovereign rights and the following basic tenants serve as the basis for modern Indian Law:
- The Federal Government recognizes that tribes are distinct political entities both protected by and subject to the laws and policies of the national government.
- The Federal Government assumes a guardian or trustee role over the tribes.
- This guardianship role is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), a branch of the Department of the Interior.

Federal Public Law 280 (1953) and the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) allowed states to take criminal jurisdiction over some tribes within their boundaries. Other case law developed distinctions between “regulatory” vs. “prohibitory” restrictions on tribal legal sovereignty.

Then in 1987 the State of California and Riverside county attempted to apply state and local regulations to gambling activities taking place on the Cabazon & Moronzo Bands reservation in southern California. At issue were the Cabazon high stakes bingo games being operated pursuant to tribal ordinances and approved by the BIA. The State argued unsuccessfully in court that these gaming activities were prohibited in the State of California. The court rejected this argument. Since California allowed some bingo, card clubs, and the state lottery, then it had clearly indicated that there was no per se public policy against gambling and the State simply regulated gaming. The Court implied that once a State permitted any gaming then the conduct was regulated and the Indian tribes could offer those games free of “State” interference.

The Cabozon decision left tribal governments free to establish gaming operations in many locales but the lack of federal regulatory guidance eventually led to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. IGRA created the National Indian Gaming Commission and authorized it to promulgate regulations and oversee some aspects of Indian gaming. At issue now are Class III games or Las Vegas style casinos which include slot machines and “banking” games where the players play against the casino. Congress intended that these Class III games be regulated cooperatively through tribal/state compacts and operation of Indian gaming facilities without a state compact is illegal. However, it is worth noting, that absent a grant of enforcement power under a compact, states may enforce neither their own laws nor IGRA itself against the tribes. The courts have granted exclusive federal jurisdiction in this area.

Currently Gov. Gray Davis is in the process of renegotiating the State’s Tribal Compacts. In question is whether the resulting changes will increase the State’s share of the operation, increase the number of allowed slots, and also provide for the enforcement and protection of issues important to neighboring communities.

INDEX

A Time Line of California Gaming

Next a timeline to seperate the propositions may be helpful.

Apr. 1998 : Governor concludes negotiations with the Pala Band of Mission Indians to permit specific type of Class III gambling on tribal land. This Pala compact was subsequently signed by ten other tribes.

Nov 1998 : State voters approved the Tribal Government Gaming and Economic Self-Sufficiency Act - Prop 5.

Nov 1998 : The 11 Pala compacts qualify for the March 2000 ballot as Prop.29 which allows slots but not banked games and also has a 20 year limit on the gaming.

Aug. 1999: Prop 5 ruled unconstitutional by State Supreme Court

Sep. 1999: Governor negotiates compacts with 57 tribes designed to supersede the Pala compacts. This goes on the March 2000 ballot as Prop 1A which allows more slots, banked games and no time limit.

Mar. 2000: Prop 1A passes and Prop 29 does not.

Mar. 2003: Governor and Tribes begin renegotiating Compacts.

INDEX

Indian Trust Land Acquisition

The basis of acquisition of land in trust is governed by a statutory process with Congress having the final say in determining whether to take tribal land into trust. The Department of the Interior has issued a general regulation, 25C.F.R. Part 151, to cover the multiplicity of other statutes and regulations governing this process. This regulation on land acquisition cites over 40 separate statutory authorities to which it applies. Note that 25 C.F.R also explicitly reserves to the Secretary the authority to waive or make exceptions to his regulations in all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver or exception is in the best interest of the Indians.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has two separate and distinct avenues for taking land into Trust for gaming purposes.
Section 20(b)(1)(A) requires a two-part determination that the gaming establishment will be in both the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community and the Governor of the State concurs with the Secretaries two-part determination.
Section 20(b)(1)(B) in part only requires that the land in question be the initial reservation of a newly recognized Tribe.

The Franklin group of Miwok Indians, having failed to garner the community support necessary for a two-part determination under section 20(b)(1)(A) of IGRA, is now attempting to manufacture the facts required for a restored lands exception under section 20(b)(1)(B) . While gaming on land placed into trust after 1988 is normally prohibited, the restored lands exception is completely different. This loophole requires no community support and no concurrence of the Governor. Local political entities are required to negotiate Municipal Service Agreements which may provide little in the way of ensuring proper mitigation for the negative impacts so well-documented with Indian casino development.

This claimed status as a “restored landless tribe is being disputed by the State of California, Amador County and The NCIP group. A detailed synopsis and accompanying documentation can be found in chronological order on the Basis for Oppostion page of this website.

What does this mean to the citizens of Plymouth. Essentially that if you feel that this proposed casino is detrimental to Plymouth and you should contact your elected representatives and tell them that you support their decision to oppose the Tribe’s claim of being “restored and landless”. The solution is in your hands: see WHAT YOU CAN DO!

INDEX

HOME

This page, and all contents, are Copyright (C) 2003 by Citizens for No Casino In Plymouth (209) 245-6115

Top