Background issues

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.

Now remember that the Franklin lead Ione band of Miwoks has been informing everyone who would listen that an opinion written by DOI Associate Solicitor Carl Artman granted them status as a restored landless tribe. However, in a related restoration case, the DOI filed a legal brief in the DC Federal Court, that argued that the Ione Band of possessed collective rights in land that provided evidence that this Indian Tribes was a continuously existing political entity. Further more that there is an “absence of any act of Congress, the Courts, or administrative action terminating the group.” In short the Ione Band of Miwoks decision was not recognizing a restored Tribe but rather “correcting an administrative error.” That brief certainly debunks Franklin’s claim of being a restored landless Tribe.

Additionally, 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 of the bogus restored claim can be found in chronological order on the Basis for Oppostion page of this website.

Return to INDEX

Plymouth City Council Issues

The major issue facing the Plymouth Council continues to revolve around the invalidated MSA. Casino supporters have been very vocal in their insistence on negotiating a new MSA. Their principal argument is the same one touted for the last 4 years. The casino is a done deal and the only way Plymouth can protect itself is by cutting a deal with the Franklin band of Miwok Indians. Nothing could be further from the Truth.

To understand the importance of a new MSA it is necessary to understand the issues revolving around the Franklin Group’s claim of being a restored landless Tribe. Those issues are covered in detail in the Basis for Oppostion page of this website. The bottom line is that there is considerable doubt about the veracity of Franklin’s claim and the mere fact that the Federal Courts have yet to schedule a hearing date for Amador County’s administrative lawsuit gives credence to the claim that this issue is far from being resolved at the DOI level.

Furthermore, to quote a March 2005 DOI memorandum to all BIA Regional Directors; ”all pending and future acquisitions for gaming, gaming related purposes, and section 20 two-part determinations should be processed in accordance with the requirements of the March 2005 checklist.” The March 2005 checklist “requires agreements between tribes and local governments regarding jurisdictional and land use issues to be submitted as part of the acquisition package”.

It is blatantly obvious to even a casual observer that the MSA is a necessary requirement for the Franklin Group. Despite their claims to the contrary, they know that they are not a restored landless tribe and therefor will require an MSA as part of their two-part determination package. Hence, the desperation in trying to coerce the Plymouth City Council into negotiating a new MSA.

Return to INDEX

Recent Tribal Actions of Franklin Group

Last December, the Tribe filed a partially completed application to take land into Trust with the Plymouth MSA and support letter as an integral part of that application. Late last spring the California Supreme Court refused to hear the Tribe’s appeal of the County/NCIP lawsuit which meant that the Third District Court ruling invalidating the Plymouth Tribal MSA would stand.

Well known to all who care to look is the fact that the US Department of the Interior “requires” - absolutely, no exceptions - “agreements between tribal and local governments regarding jurisdictional and land use issues to be submitted as part of the acquisition package…” In other words, without an MSA, the Tribe and their gambling interests are unable to file a full and complete application for a casino. This presents a dilemma for the Tribe because without an MSA, regardless of anything else that may happen, including the land being taken into trust, there will be no casino.

The Franklin group has now embarked on a two-pronged assault on the Plymouth City Council in an attempt to secure the MSA required for their incomplete application. First, they have had their backers attend City Council meetings and attempt to badger the Council into reopening negotiations with the Tribe. Secondly, they have initiated a slick new “PR” campaign with a website and glossy brochures which are aimed at swaying public opinion into supporting new negotiations. The message is the same old dishonest argument we’ve heard before…”we don’t want the casino but Plymouth must negotiate to protect itself because it’s a done deal.” The TRUTH of the matter is that without a MSA their will be no casino in Plymouth and that is the only way to protect the City from the unwanted and negative impacts of this proposed casino.

Return to INDEX

This page, and all its contents, are Copyright (C) 2003 by Citizens for No Casino In Plymouth (209) 245-6115. If you find any factual inaccuracies on this Website – contact NCIP for correction.

---

---