COMMENTS FROM DEFENDANTS FILINGS, PAINTING THE LAWSUITS AS BEING AN INTRA-TRIBAL DISPUTE TO GET THEM DISMISSED AND AVOID BEING CHARGED AS INDIVIDUALS ACTING OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THEIR OFFICE; (Like WE, the GM. had something to do with firing the commissioners, and starting all this mess! Yeah right Carol. Why shouldnt the defendants pay out of their own pockets? We (the GM) didnt even know this happened until the filings hit the courts, now were are suppose to be part of the problem with this intra-tribal disputes language? Thanks for keeping the GM in the loop, council! All you gave us was insulting gift cards from our gaming revenues. and made us pay the taxes on them) QUOTES BLAMING US FOR WHAT THE DEFENDANTS DID AT THE CASINO: “Plaintiffs’ RICO claim seeks to impose the harsh penalties of RICO (e.g., treble damages) based on vague and conclusory allegations concerning intra-tribal matters.” “These intra-tribal determinations lie outside the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction, and run through each and every claim.” “In Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Bear, the court held that neither Indian Gaming Regulatory Act nor RICO provided a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in intra-tribal disputes,” “RICO is not a tool to force the Court to resolve intra-tribal disputes involving Indian gaming that otherwise lie outside of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” “This is an intra-tribal dispute over which this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.” “The RICO claim seeks to impose the harsh penalties of RICO (e.g., treble damages) based on vague and conclusory allegations concerning matters of intra-tribal governance.” Nonsense. Now the attorneys we pay, are blaming us the General Membership for the actions of these defendants and making us their SCAPEGOATS.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:19:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015