Casino news from http://www.zwire.com/
Since the early 1990s, the Paugussetts have been trying to recover thousands of acres in this region it claims it owns. That includes land in downtown Shelton, as well as Bridgeport, Southport, Derby, Seymour, Orange, Woodbridge and several other communities.
Though the tribe also had a reservation in Milford, that city is missing from the land claims list. Aurelius H. Piper Jr. of Trumbull, also known as Chief Quiet Hawk, Council Chief of the Paugussett tribe, said the tribe has "always had a good relationship with the city and the people of Milford. There's been no need to pursue the land we own there; which takes in the whole city."
Piper also said he knows "for certain that a deed exists" for the tribal land in Milford, but he did not elaborate.
Piper has stipulated over the years that the tribe is willing to drop all land claims in exchange for acreage in Bridgeport and federal recognition so it can build a casino in that city.
Having failed thus far to prevail on those claims in federal courts in Connecticut, and failing as well to gain federal recognition, the tribe is now taking a different approach: It wants what could amount to millions of dollars in back rent from local property owners whose homes occupy the land tribal leaders say were once Paugussett reservations.
Lawyers for the tribe recently filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court in New Haven seeking the back rent. While it names the city of Bridgeport as the primary defendant, it also lists hundreds of individuals and companies that own property in the aforementioned communities. Additionally, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Bridgeport Mayor John M. Fabrizi are listed as defendants.
A favorable court ruling on the back rent claim ultimately could lead to federal recognition of the Paugussetts and a renewal of their original land claim actions.
As was the case when the tribe first filed its land claim lawsuit in 1992, state Attorney Gen. Richard Blumenthal says his office will file a motion to dismiss the case and will help the defendants.
Blumenthal rejoiced last year when the Department of Interior (DOI) denied the tribe's petition for federal tribal recognition for the third time. He said in a statement then that the decision "marks the end of the road for the Golden Hill Paugussetts' petition."
Michael D. O'Connell, the Hartford lawyer who filed the recent amendment on the tribe's behalf, said it's "ironic that the state would hold that position, since the Paugussetts are one of only five tribes explicitly recognized by state statute in Connecticut as an indigenous Indian tribe."
O'Connell's amendment claims the tribe has been denied "the use and enjoyment of any rental income and profits rightfully due to it from the land" and asks for "damages representing the fair rent value of the land."
Pursuing casino
O'Connell reiterated the tribe's offer to drop the claims in exchange for a casino. He said the offer remains on the table, but the attorney general's office has rejected that option and stated the defendants are unwilling to settle with the Paugussetts.
"The tribe has said all along that it didn't want to hurt any individuals," O'Connell said, "but in order to seek to recover their lands, they had to go through the courts and follow procedure. That's why the offer for the Bridgeport land was made in exchange for dropping the legal action."
The tribe is receiving financial assistance to support the legal action from non-tribal sources who are interested in a share of the casino, should the tribe's efforts succeed.
At the heart of this legal dispute is the tribe's claim that early settlers who made deals with tribal ancestors to obtain reservation land violated a 1790 law that stated Congress must approve all land deals with tribes.
O'Connell said the latest court action could take months before a trial might come about to determine the validity of the tribe's claims for past rents.
O'Connell said he's also keeping a close watch on a case involving the Shinnecock Nation in Southampton, N.Y., which could affect the outcome of the Connecticut case.
That tribe applied for federal recognition in 1978, and it was placed on the Bureau of Indian Affairs' "Ready for Active" list in 2003, according to the tribe's website. A federal court later recognized the Shinnecock nation as an Indian tribe, though the federal DOI does not.
James Lynch of Waterbury, who heads up the Historical Consulting and Research Services, said if a federal appeals court rules in the Shinnecocks' favor again, it could order the DOI to recognize the tribe, and the agency would have to obey.
Lynch said he is scheduled to appear as an expert witness in the Shinnecock case on behalf of the town of Southampton. He said a Shinnecock victory in this appeal could give weight to the Paugussetts' claim in Connecticut, and could lead to the tribe re-opening its original land claim lawsuit.
"One of the reasons the Indians are encouraged," said Lynch, "is that a federal judge in Long Island has allowed a non-federally recognized tribe to bring land claims in a federal court, despite that non-recognition."
Also, said Lynch, "the judge did something ground-breaking when he bestowed upon the Shinnecock Indians traditional recognition as a federal tribe. Once he did that, the Department of the Interior made it known that it won't recognize his decision. But if the appellate court upholds the judge's ruling, it can order the DOI to recognize the tribe."
Lynch also said an important note is that the Paugussetts chose to file the amended claim for back rents to change the damages being sought. "They changed the legal remedy being sought because of an important U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the state of New York in Sherrill vs. the Oneida tribe, in which it said, in part, that seeking the expulsion of current residents in land claim actions is too drastic a remedy.
"So the Paugussetts got rid of the expulsion clause in their complaint and are now looking for back rent and any other remedy the courts may deem proper," he said.
Lynch said that means a court might find what it considers a proper remedy and rule in the Paugussetts' favor, which could lead to court recognition of the tribe, allowing it to reopen its original lawsuit.
O'Connell said he will "be watching that case very closely."
|
|
