 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
No matter what supporters of casino gambling may say to rationalize it, it is undeniably, the public policy of this State, as exemplified in its Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 9 [1]), prohibits gambling or lotteries (except those lotteries operated by the State for the support of education, the offering of bingo and similar games to support charitable organizations, and pari-mutuel horse racing for the support of government) and the advancement of, and profiting from, gambling. The policy of this State disfavors gambling, unless done in accordance with laws and regulations strictly complied with. The New York constitutional provisions were adopted with a view toward protecting the family man of meager resources from his own imprudence at the gaming tables.
Some of our citizens fail to appreciate these differences and believe that all kinds of gambling should be allowed or all forms condemned. However, it is the preference of the majority as expressed at the voting booths and in the Legislature with the result that now, as during this State's whole history, the operation of a gambling casino is a criminal offense and loans by the operator to his customer or bets made on credit are uncollectible. This is our historical and settled State policy and it is totally inconsistent with that policy to say that the Legislature and the Governor can enter into a contract that not only authorizes and permits the operations of up to six gambling casinos without a constitutional amendment and the attendant votes by two consecutive sessions of the legislature and a referendum of all state voters, but also take a percentage of the gross receipts. This act is inconsistent with our State Constitution and long standing public policy.
The current state of the law is that commercialized gambling is illegal. We do not ask for obedience of the law as a favor, but demand it as a right.
The Senecas are not a true sovereign like Canada or Mexico they are a dependent domestic sovereign subject to the plenary control of Congress. Congress in enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act incorporated state laws relating to gambling into federal law. So the Senecas have to abide by the State's laws relative to gambling as a matter of federal law.
If you do not like the law as it exists then you need to work to change it, but you cannot ignore it and it needs to be applied equally REGARDLESS of race, creed, color or national origin.
If the pro-casino supporters had put as much effort in trying to get what they want through the front door as they have trying to get it through the back door we would have not just one casino, but a strip of them competing with each other, and it is competition that stimulate economic growth in any industry not the granting of an exclusive franchise. The citizens of this State have voted a number of times over the last 70 years to allow the various forms of gambling currently permitted, we did not do so to permit commercialized gambling.
It was the Senecas and their supporters who attempted to manipulate the system. They did so by trying to assert that the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990 was a settlement of a land claim when it was not. They did this by using argumentum ad nauseum by repeatedly referring to it as the Seneca Nation Land Claim Settlement Act when this was niether the long or short name for it. It should be noted that the Senecas lost their land claim to Grand Island in 2002 and ultimately the United States Supreme Court declined to review the matter. In fact the United States actually argued against Supreme Court review.
Then the Senecas and their supporters wanted to read the Memorandum of Understanding they negotiated with the State in a manner that would permit them to place the casino in Cheektowaga. Several residents initiated a lawsuit to challenge this and prevailed (Huron Group v. Pataki). The court in deciding that the Senecas were required to locate the casino in the City of Buffalo rather than in Cheektowaga ruled that if they want to change the location of the casino from Buffalo to Cheektowaga then they need to obtain authorization from the State Legislature. Needless to say the Senecas chose not to do that and proceeded to pick a site in Buffalo.
Judge Skretny's recent ruling does not prevent them from applying to have gambling permitted on the Buffalo site under the discretionary two-part process under Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. However, they have yet pursued this avenue of relief. Just as they could have, but didn't, gone back to the State Legislature to authorize locating the Casino in Cheektowaga.
Then in the face of Judge Skretny's ruling when the plaintiffs requested enforcement of it they erroneously claimed that there is an automatic stay of 10 days before enforcement proceedings can be brought. This assertion is erroneous in that the provision they were relying on expressly excepted permanent injunctions after a final judgment. Some commentators even suggested that it would be the Plaintiffs that would have to file a bond in the event of a stay pending appeal is granted. This too is erroneous, it would be the appellant's burden to obtain the stay pending appeal and post any bond required, in this case that would be the United States which has not even filed a notice of appeal as of yet.
Now the Senecas and the United States claim that new regulations, that will not even be in effect until August 25, 2008, somehow changes things and that Judge Skretny should reconsider his ruling and remand it to the NIGC based on an application the Senecas filed on July 16, 2008. This is interesting because Nedra Darling of the Bureau of Indian Affairs has said that the new rules would not be applicable to applications filed before the effective date of the new regulations when speaking about the applications of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe or Jemez Pueblo.
In any event Judge Skretny made his determination as a matter of statutory construction and therefore no deference is due to the opinion of the NIGC and remand to it is precluded because the NIGC cannot act contrary to the statute as interpreted by the courts.
The Senecas have not worked within the system rather they try to circumvent it at every turn and they have now been caught doing it twice and attempting yet another end run around the law.
Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney testified before Congress that "simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior." This situation is more evidence in support of Mr. Devaney's testimony.
I have a pending action in U.S. District Court that asserts that the Seneca's casinos, and all other casinos in New York, are illegal and should be prohibited until New York amends its Constitution.
Some have recently pointed to the Wendt Foundation's prior investment in Harrah's Entertainment and its purported attendant profit from the sale of those investments as hypocrisy, I view it as poetic justice. For me this is not a moral issue, but an issue going to the very essence of our form of government and the rule of law. So their investment in a company that promotes legal forms of gambling while fighting an illegal gambling establishment is not hypocrisy.
The citizens of New York were deprived of the opportunity to have a public debate and discussion of the issue of commercialized gambling and to make their wishes known by a statewide referendum by the actions of former Governors Cuomo and Pataki and the various Indian nations and tribes in circumventing our State's Constitution.
© Copyright 2023 - Speakupwny.com
hosted by Online Media, Inc
Buffalo Web Design and Web Hosting
Top of Page
|
|
|
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|
Buffalo Web hosting and Buffalo Web Design By OnLineMedia, Inc
www.olm1.com
Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com
|