AURELIUS - Attorneys representing the state, Cayuga County, and the towns of Aurelius and Montezuma are requesting a re-examination of evidence and a jury trial in their legal battle against Seneca-Cayuga Tribe's claim to sovereignty.
The requests were made in a 21-page argument filed with U.S. District Court Judge Neal McCurn as part of their ongoing court dispute with the tribe.
On Sept. 8, McCurn said he would issue a decision whether the Seneca-Cayugas could build a $25-million bingo hall on land they own in Aurelius without local government regulation by Sept. 25.
McCurn told both sides to file arguments by Sept. 16, and objections to each other's arguments by Sept. 22.
In the Sept. 8 hearing in Syracuse, attorneys for the Seneca-Cayugas wanted McCurn to grant a temporary injunction against the towns, county, and state so construction could begin on a temporary, modular bingo hall on the tribe's 229 acres at the intersection of routes 90 and 5&20.
But McCurn, who has ruled on the Cayuga landclaim for more than 20 years, upheld a temporary restraining order prohibiting the tribe from working on the land until he issues his decision.
However, in upholding the restraining order, McCurn dismissed the introduction of evidence by government attorneys regarding the validity of various treaties and the history of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, two issues central to their argument.
"Right or wrong, I've already decided those issues. We're not going to go through that again," McCurn said during the Sept. 8 hearing.
In arguments submitted Sept. 16, Assistant Attorney General David Roberts and Dwight Healy, attorney for White & Case LLP of Manhattan who is representing the town of Aurelius, vigorously disputed McCurn's contention that the historical record has already been reviewed as part of the landclaim lawsuit and has no bearing on the Seneca-Cayuga sovereignty dispute.
In his four-page affidavit that accompanied the argument, Roberts, the state's lead attorney in the landclaim appeal, maintained the 1838 Bear Creek Treaty was "not addressed in the land claim."
Roberts said the history and status of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe was given "very limited" attention during the landclaim lawsuit.
"There were no historical materials offered by the defendants that specifically addressed the tribe's history or status" during those proceedings, he said.
What should be examined in this case is the "timing, circumstances of the departure of the Cayugas who went to Oklahoma, Ohio, and joined the Senecas" and if members of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe received lands from the federal government in Ohio "and/or" Oklahoma before joining landclaim lawsuits in New York, Roberts said.
In the argument, the governments maintain McCurn's arbitrary dismissal of their evidence denied them their right to a full "discovery" of the facts and the "fair opportunity to present evidence."
Issues discussed during the landclaim were "not the same evidence, not the same issues," the governments claim, noting, "The evidence as to the history of the tribe and its relationship to the historic Cayuga Indian Nation was, to put it mildly, limited."
For instance, the governments say, specifics of the pivotal Buffalo Creek Treaty were never fully explored in the landclaim lawsuit, only if the treaty, when signed in 1838, retroactively ratified 1795 and 1807 pacts with different elements of the Cayugas.
"The limited record demonstrates necessity for discovery and further development of the facts," the governments state. "The record reflects substantial conflict as to the history of the Cayugas who left New York and ultimately became part of the tribe; the history of the tribe; and the nature and extent of the relationship, if any, of the tribe to the Cayuga Indian Nation."
Other claims that should be further explored include whether the tribe is complying with environmental laws; its history of self-regulation in land use and building codes; and the identities and parties of those financing the tribe's organization and development."
On Sept. 8, McCurn said he would issue a decision whether the Seneca-Cayugas could build a $25-million bingo hall on land they own in Aurelius without local government regulation by Sept. 25.
McCurn told both sides to file arguments by Sept. 16, and objections to each other's arguments by Sept. 22.
In the Sept. 8 hearing in Syracuse, attorneys for the Seneca-Cayugas wanted McCurn to grant a temporary injunction against the towns, county, and state so construction could begin on a temporary, modular bingo hall on the tribe's 229 acres at the intersection of routes 90 and 5&20.
But McCurn, who has ruled on the Cayuga landclaim for more than 20 years, upheld a temporary restraining order prohibiting the tribe from working on the land until he issues his decision.
However, in upholding the restraining order, McCurn dismissed the introduction of evidence by government attorneys regarding the validity of various treaties and the history of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, two issues central to their argument.
"Right or wrong, I've already decided those issues. We're not going to go through that again," McCurn said during the Sept. 8 hearing.
In arguments submitted Sept. 16, Assistant Attorney General David Roberts and Dwight Healy, attorney for White & Case LLP of Manhattan who is representing the town of Aurelius, vigorously disputed McCurn's contention that the historical record has already been reviewed as part of the landclaim lawsuit and has no bearing on the Seneca-Cayuga sovereignty dispute.
In his four-page affidavit that accompanied the argument, Roberts, the state's lead attorney in the landclaim appeal, maintained the 1838 Bear Creek Treaty was "not addressed in the land claim."
Roberts said the history and status of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe was given "very limited" attention during the landclaim lawsuit.
"There were no historical materials offered by the defendants that specifically addressed the tribe's history or status" during those proceedings, he said.
What should be examined in this case is the "timing, circumstances of the departure of the Cayugas who went to Oklahoma, Ohio, and joined the Senecas" and if members of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe received lands from the federal government in Ohio "and/or" Oklahoma before joining landclaim lawsuits in New York, Roberts said.
In the argument, the governments maintain McCurn's arbitrary dismissal of their evidence denied them their right to a full "discovery" of the facts and the "fair opportunity to present evidence."
Issues discussed during the landclaim were "not the same evidence, not the same issues," the governments claim, noting, "The evidence as to the history of the tribe and its relationship to the historic Cayuga Indian Nation was, to put it mildly, limited."
For instance, the governments say, specifics of the pivotal Buffalo Creek Treaty were never fully explored in the landclaim lawsuit, only if the treaty, when signed in 1838, retroactively ratified 1795 and 1807 pacts with different elements of the Cayugas.
"The limited record demonstrates necessity for discovery and further development of the facts," the governments state. "The record reflects substantial conflict as to the history of the Cayugas who left New York and ultimately became part of the tribe; the history of the tribe; and the nature and extent of the relationship, if any, of the tribe to the Cayuga Indian Nation."
Other claims that should be further explored include whether the tribe is complying with environmental laws; its history of self-regulation in land use and building codes; and the identities and parties of those financing the tribe's organization and development."
