Corrupt Chukchansi Faction AYALA LOSES in COURT to Corrupt Chukchansi Faction Lewis

The same tribe that says courts have NO SAY in tribal matters want court to solve tribal matter:

The court says differently:

Plaintiffs argue that CIHA is a separate entity from the tribal government, and
that HUD and the Court must continue to recognize the last formally recognized tribal government – and the CIHA board that it appointed – until the BIA and the Tribe resolve
the intra-tribal dispute. Doc. 28 at 4. But CIHA is not an entity separate from the factions vying for control of the Tribe. The Ayala faction claims to control CIHA, while the Lewis faction has appointed an entirely different set of board members to govern
CIHA. Control of CIHA is therefore embroiled in the intra-tribal dispute this Court
cannot resolve.

The same is true of the tribal court judgment upon which Plaintiffs ask the Court
to rely. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the various tribal factions have established their own
tribal courts and have obtained rulings in their favor from those courts. Doc. 28 at 8-9.
Even if a ruling of a tribal court would be entitled to deference (an issue the Court need
not decide), identifying the valid tribal court would require a prohibited inquiry into the
claims of the competing tribal factions.
III. Conclusion.

Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that they have been injured by
Defendants’ actions or that their injuries will be redressed by this Court’s order without
asking the Court to resolve matters of intra-tribal governance. Plaintiffs therefore cannot
show that they have standing to pursue this action. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments
and authorities unpersuasive, and elects to follow cases that have dismissed similar
claims

North Fork Rancheria Debate Continues. OFF RESERVATION GAMING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

There is nothing I'd like better than to see casino business taken away from the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians.  But letting Governor Jerry Brown authorize off reservation casinos is NOT the way to go.

Tribal Casinos should be on reservation land that was available when Californians passed gaming laws.  Actually, it's time to end those compacts and open state-run gambling, so that ALL the people have the benefits of gaming and not just tribes.   We have seen and many of has felt the negative impacts that come with tribal gaming.

The Desert Sun has a story up on this issue:

Californians will decide next year whether a Central Valley Indian tribe can open a new casino, meaning voters should prepare themselves for a statewide debate over so-called “off-reservation” gaming that desert tribes oppose.

The state and federal governments granted permission to the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians for a casino along Highway 99 north of Fresno, but a group funded by competing casino interests succeeded in getting a referendum before voters next November.  OP:  DO NOT BELIEVE that these tribes are worried about the law not being followed.  They are concerned with losing market share.

The North Fork tribe has said its designated land can’t accommodate development to support the tribal economy, so it secured 305 acres in Madera County that was part of its historical homeland for a new casino. The site is 36 miles from the tribe’s governmental headquarters.

Here are statements from two Southern California Tribes:

The Morongo tribe has “consistently opposed tribal gaming on land that is not on or adjacent to an existing reservation,” Martin said in the statement.

Jeff Grubbe, chairman of the Palm Springs-based Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, said in a statement the tribe “respects the wishes of California voters” and, “It’s been our longstanding position that off-reservation gaming compacts break this commitment.”

Read the rest HERE:
OFF RESERVATION GAMING