The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians doesn't believe it won't have to follow it's compact in the COSENTINO v. Pechanga matter, a case Pechanga lost at appeal.
Watch the 30 minute video here:
Benedict Cosentino V Pechanga Band, No.13-57113
The Abuse that Pechanga heaped on Cosentino, appears to be covered in Pechanga's compact, which was changed.
And learn MORE about COSENTINO V PECHANGA:
Find Lawsuit Filing HERE
RIVERSIDE PRESS ENTERPRISE
Benedict Cosentino
Find the Original Cosentino briefs here
I like when about 26 minutes in, one judge clearly acknowledges that only a few select people benefit from the tribe's gaming enterprise. Just goes to demonstrate that the practice of disenrollment is not going unnoticed. Ironic how Pechanga's attorney cites the "authority" of the NIGC over Indian Gaming, yet for all intents or purposes, the NIGC is an epic fallacy.
ReplyDeleteMinute 25:50 to 26:55. Judge Pregerson comments, "Indian gambling, that's a powerful force of the political life of this state. They probably have the best cadre of lobbyists of this state. They get what they want. Certain people get the benefit of it... this isn't spread around... hasn't been from what I've learned from sitting on these cases." Knowing this is clearly not an even playing field, will these judges for once rule according to the law? After all, the law has been clearly written against the defendant this time!
ReplyDeleteThe argument is so simple. It's about whether a native American tribal ordinance (that claims immunity from certain laws) is ABOVE the rules that had been set forth by the State of California and signed on by the tribe itself. Of course NOT. It's a no-brainer, AND there is a precedent case law supporting so in the plaintiff's argument.
The Pechanga Band had to waive their sovereign immunity on certain claims such as Cosentino's injury in order to operate casinos in the State of California. Now the Band had refused to follow their agreement with the state, siting their own tribal ordinance giving themselves immunity. When the plaintiff asked the court to compel arbitration on the dispute, arguing that the tribe's agreement/compact with California is the controlling rule, not their own ordinance that contradicts the compact, the trial court somehow found reasons to dismiss the case. The plaintiff is now asking the Federal Appellate court to reverse the trial court's dismissal.
But watch how judge Hurwitz steered the discussion away from the core issue from the get go, and how cozy they were with the defendant lawyer, chatting on irrelevant things, and failing to ask any sharp questions or follow up on any evidence supporting his claims. Watch how eagerly Judge Wardlaw nodded to agree with the defendant lawyer on his lie about how indian gaming has done so much good. Is she really that out of touch? Hope Judge Pregerson's speech is not a prediction on this case.
Indian gaming has only benefited the "hang around the fort Indians" due to their ability to exploit true Indians.
ReplyDelete