Subscribe to Original Pechanga

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

NOOKSACK: Briefs are out in the Doucette vs Dept. of Interior


Doucette claims the BIA acted improperly (THEM? who would believe that? oh yea, THOUSANDS of us)   BIA says, what's a little quid pro quo amongst friends

The estimable Turtle Talk Blog has the briefs of the case we wrote about in 2017

US says:  Even if the Tribe’s attorney was encouraging the Department to

act more quickly in order to benefit third parties in another lawsuit that

fact does not make his communications with the Department improper

or otherwise undermine the propriety of the Department’s decision to

recognize the Council

Doucette says:   
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY NOT REQUIRING INTERIOR TO PRODUCE THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. “The whole administrative record,” as per 5 U.S.C. § 706, “is not necessarily those documents that the agency has compiled and submitted as the administrative record. The whole administrative record . . . consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency’s position.” Thompson v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original; citations omitted); see also Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 739 (10th Cir.1993) (“The complete administrative record consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by the agency.”). The critical inquiry is what was before the decisionmaker “at the time of the decision.”9 Thompson, 885 F.2d at 555. Lobbyist Porter’s dogged requests that Interior aid his clients in Rabang I by March 9, 2018, were directly or indirectly before PDAS Tahsuda at the time of his decision on that very same day. ER 0096-0108, 0159. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Please see this announcement by BIA Pacific Region below. Why is Analytical Environmental Services (AES) ( email) involved is a so-called “organization” of a tribe? As you know AES does EIS's for casino development and land into trust. If the BIA doesn’t believe this tribe is organized, then why are they involving a third party environmental assessment group to organize the meeting AND address questions from registrants (see below registration response).

You’ll remember how the BIA jammed a new Casino in Wilton through at the end of the last administration. Could the same thing be happening here? Where will it be? Long rumored the faction that will benefit from new organization worked closely with Arlo Smith in 2007 to bring a casino into the Bay Area. You and others may want to register. The zoom meeting is today.

California Valley Miwok Tribe - Organization Information

Welcome to the California Valley Miwok Tribe informational page. On this page you will find information regarding activities to organize and guide eligible participants through the process of organization.
On October 8, 2020, a virtual meeting to discuss the plan to accomplish this task will be held on-line. In order to participate in the meeting, you will need to register. Staff had hoped to conduct this meeting in person, but due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, this venue is the safest method to move forward and protect everyone’s health.
The link below will take you to a registration page. Once you have registered, you will receive an email providing instructions on how to connect to the virtual meeting. The registration email will be from You may have to check your “spam” or “junk” email folders to ensure the email is received.
Click on the link below to register for Virtual Meeting:

Hi ____________,

Thank you for registering for "Virtual Public Hearing - California Valley Miwok Tribe Organization".

Please submit any questions to:

Date Time: Oct 8, 2020 01:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: