UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF … · 10/1/2014 · Morris Reid, Reggie Lewis, and Nokomis Hernandez, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 11. Attorney Les Marston

Rosette, LLP

193 Blue Ravine Road

Suite 255

Folsom, California 95630

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CASE NO.: 1:14-CV-01593 LJO SAB

DECLARATION OF ROBERT ROSETTE

Robert A. Rosette (CA SBN 224437)

Geoffrey M. Hash (CA SBN 227223)

ROSETTE, LLP

193 Blue Ravine Rd., Suite 255


Telephone: (916) 353-1084

Facsimile: (916) 353-1085

[email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF

CHUKCHANSI INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA,

A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN

TRIBE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:14-CV-01593 LJO SAB DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. ROSETTE Date: October 15, 2014 Time: 1:30 PM Courtroom: 4, 7

th Fl.

Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill

I, ROBERT A. ROSETTE, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the law firm, Rosette, LLP, legal counsel to the Picayune

Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Tribe”). I am admitted to

practice before this Court and the courts of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen,

am competent and of sound mind, and I am not a party to this action. I have personal knowledge

of the matters set forth in this Declaration except as to those matters stated on information and

belief, and as to those matters, I am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I

Rosette, LLP

Attorneys at Law


Suite 255


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 CASE NO.: 1:14-CV-01593 LJO SAB


could and would testify competently to the matters set forth in this Declaration.

2. Since April, 2014, Rosette, LLP has also represented the Paskenta Band of

Nomlaki Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“Paskenta Tribe”), in connection with

fending off an armed attempted take-over of its tribal casino, the Rolling Hills Casino located at

2655 Everett Freeman Way, in Corning, California (“Paskenta Tribal Casino”).

3. Recently, beginning in April, 2014, there were two factions claiming to be the

legitimate leadership of the Paskenta Tribe.

4. One of the two factions was in control of the Paskenta Tribal Casino, while the

other faction was not in control of it.

5. The faction that was not in control of the Paskenta Tribal Casino (“Attacking

Faction”) staged a violent overthrow attempt of the Casino on June 9, 2014, attacking with

approximately 25 individuals who were armed with various weapons, including firearms, and

claimed to be a “Tribal Police” force. This attack occurred on Paskenta Tribal Casino property,

including various points of entry to the Paskenta Tribal Casino itself.

6. The State of California obtained, from Judge Mueller of this Court, a Temporary

Restraining Order that restored the status quo as it existed prior to the Attacking Faction’s violent

overthrow attempt of June 9, 2014 (“Paskenta TRO”). A true and correct copy of the Paskenta

TRO is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. In summary, however, the Paskenta TRO restored the

status quo as it existed before the attack by keeping the Attacking Faction out of the Paskenta

Tribal Casino and enjoining it from attempts to disturb the status quo with respect to operation of

the Paskenta Tribal Casino. The Paskenta TRO also disarmed all factions by prohibiting the

deployment of armed personnel of any nature within 100 yards of the Paskenta Tribal Casino, the

Paskenta Tribal Casino property, and the tribal properties surrounding the Casino (nearby hotels,

gas station, and RV park) (collectively “Tribal Properties”) and the possession, carrying, and

displaying of firearms on Tribal Properties.

7. On July 7, 2014, Judge Mueller issued a Preliminary Injunction with the same

substantive terms as the Paskenta TRO (“Paskenta PI”). A true and correct copy of the Paskenta

Rosette, LLP

Attorneys at Law


Suite 255


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



PI is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.

8. Following issuance of the Paskenta TRO and the Paskenta PI, the Paskenta Tribal

Casino was permitted to remain open and has remained open from that time and to this date

without any violent actions at the Paskenta Tribal Casino or further threats to public welfare and

safety. Thus, this Court, through the Paskenta TRO and Paskenta PI successfully addressed and

resolved the threats to public health and safety caused by the Attacking Faction’s actions, and it

was able to do this without addressing any of the internal Tribal leadership issues. In addition,

because the Paskenta Tribal Casino remained open, Paskenta Tribal Casino employees were able

to continue their employment, uninterrupted, and received all of the benefits that accompany that

employment. Thus, this Court, through the Paskenta TRO and Paskenta PI, also resolved the

issues while avoiding the threats to public health and safety that would have accompanied any

loss of employment. I am also informed and believe that, because the Paskenta Tribal Casino

remained open, there was far less impact to the local economy than there would have been had

the Casino been closed as part of the Paskenta TRO or the Paskenta PI, thereby further preserving

public health, welfare and safety.

9. On May 16, 2013, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs

(“BIA”), through Troy Burdick (Superintendent of the BIA’s Central California Agency)

formally affirmed that the BIA recognized the Tribes December 1, 2012 election and “recognized

the individuals elected into office at the December 1, 2012, tribal election as the governing body

authorized to conduct government-to-government business with the Bureau of Indian Affiars:

Nancy Ayala, Chairperson, Reggie Lewis, Vice-Chairperson, Karen Wynn, Treasurer, Chance

Alberta, Member-at-Large, Charles Sargosa, Member-at-Large, Carl Buzz Bushman, Member-at-

Large . . .” (“Superintendent Burdick’s Decision”). A true and correct copy of Superintendent

Burdick’s Decision, whereby the BIA formally affirmed and recognized the Tribe’s leadership, is

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

10. Various factions appealed Superintendent Burdick’s Decision, including those led

by Reggie Lewis, Nancy Ayala, and Morris Reid. Upon review of these three appeals, the

Rosette, LLP

Attorneys at Law


Suite 255


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



United Stated Department of Interior, BIA, through Amy Dutschke (Regional Director of the

BIA’s Pacific Regional Office), issued a decision on February 11, 2014 (“Regional Director

Dutschke’s Decision”). The Regional Director Dutschke’s Decision establishes, in relevant part,

that the “situation at the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians has deteriorated to a point

that recognition of a government is essential for the purpose of contracting under the [Indian

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act], and to prevent any further hiatus of this

government-to-government relationship with the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians.

Therefore the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, will conduct business, on an interim

basis, with the last uncontested Tribal Council [citation to Acting Governor Leslie Wardrie-

Harjo, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes v. Southern Plains Regional Director, 53 IBIA 121, 124

(2011)] elected December 2010, consisting of Dora Jones, Chance Alberta, Jennifer Stanley,

Nancy Ayala, Morris Reid, Reggie Lewis, and Nokomis Hernandez, until such time as the issue

is resolved in accordance with the Tribe’s laws.” (Emphasis added). A true and correct copy of

Superintendent Burdick’s Decision, whereby the BIA formally affirmed and recognized the

Tribe’s leadership as consisting of Dora Jones, Chance Alberta, Jennifer Stanley, Nancy Ayala,

Morris Reid, Reggie Lewis, and Nokomis Hernandez, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

11. Attorney Les Marston previously represented Nancy Ayala and her supporters

(“Ayala Faction”), including in matters before this Court (see e.g. Case Numbers 1:14-cv-00220-

AWI-SAB, 1:13-cv-00609-LJO-MJS, 1:13-cv-00831-LJO-MJS, and 1:13-at-00354), as well as in

matters before other courts (see e.g. Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New

York, Case No. 652140/2013). However, and though he has received no conflict waiver from

Nancy Ayala, he now represents Tex McDonald and his supporters (“McDonald Faction”).

12. In recent arguments before courts, Mr. Marston has affirmed his position that the

rightful Picayune Rancheria Tribal Gaming Commission (“PRTGC”) is led by Chairperson

Dyann Eckstein, and the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino (“Casino”) is properly led by Giffen

Tan. True and correct copies with relevant portions containing Mr. Marston’s arguments

regarding the same before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,

Rosette, LLP

Attorneys at Law


Suite 255


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Case No. 652140/2013 on July 2 and July 29, 2014 are attached hereto as Exhibit E and Exhibit

F, respectively.

13. On August 24, 2014 the Tribal Council that was most recently recognized by the

BIA through Regional Director Dutschke’s Decision (i.e., the Tribal Council elected in

December, 2010) came together to form and recognize the “2014 Unification Council” as the

legal and valid leadership of the Tribe, all in an effort to move past the then-existing internal

Tribal leadership disputes for the good of the Tribe, the Casino, and the larger community. A true

and correct copy of the formal Tribal Resolution adopted by the BIA-recognized 2010 Tribal

Council memorializing this decision is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

14. As this Court may be aware, on October 10, 2014, the National Indian Gaming

Commission (“NIGC”) issued a Notice of Violation and Temporary Closure Order (NOV-14-03,

TCO-14-02) addressed to the “Chairman (Agent for Service)” of the Tribe, Khammy Chom,

Executive Director of the PRTGC, and Casino General Manager Giffen Tan(“NIGC Closure

Order”). A true and correct copy of the NIGC Closure Order is attached to the Declaration of

Giffen Tan as Exhibit A. The NIGC Closure Order indicates that the NIGC issued this order in

light of the McDonald Faction’s actions on October 9, 2014 and occupation of the Casino

thereafter, and the resulting “real and immediate threat to human health and well-being, which if

uncorrected, could result in serious harm or death.” See Exhibit A, attached to the Declaration of

Giffen Tan filed herewith. Even if this Court amends the Temporary Restraining Order now in

effect and allows the Tribe to reopen the Casino under conditions protecting the health, welfare

and safety of the public, the Tribe and Casino must still satisfy the NIGC that the Casino is ready

to reopen. Thus, this Court’s modification of any injunctive relief so as to allow reopening of the

Casino is but one of many preliminary steps that must occur before the Tribe may actually reopen

the Casino for public use. My understanding, based on recent conversations with Mr. Eric

Shepard, the NIGC’s General Counsel, is that the NIGC will not lift its Closure Order until the

Tribal parties have reached and memorialized an internal agreement that includes terms

guaranteeing proper regulation of the Casino and the protection of the health, welfare and safety

Rosette, LLP

Attorneys at Law


Suite 255


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



of the public, including Casino employees, patrons, vendors, and other persons. Thus, I am

informed and believe that a decision by this Court to modify the present TRO and allow

reopening under the terms requested by the Tribe is one component of what will constitute “good

cause” for any decision by the NIGC to permit reopening of the Tribe’s Casino. This Court’s

modification of the present TRO will not, in and of itself, allow for the immediate reopening of

the Casino. However, it is a very important step in that direction.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of

California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 14th

day of October, 2014, in

Coarsegold, California.

_/s/ Robert A. Rosette________

Robert A. Rosette

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Preliminary Injunction [2:14-cv001449-KJM/CMK]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

V.

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS, A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01449-KJM/CMK

ORDER GRANTING

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On July 7, 2014, the court was prepared to hear arguments regarding the entry of a

preliminary injunction and whether the court should enter a broader injunction than requested by

plaintiff with respect to class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki

Indians. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the court they had reached a

stipulation to entry of a preliminary injunction in substantially the same form as the temporary

restraining order entered in this action on June 18, 2014. The parties also advised that upon entry

of the preliminary injunction order, they agreed to a stay of all further litigation pending a status

conference in October 2014.

Case 2:14-cv-01449-KJM-CMK Document 30 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2


The court approves the parties’ stipulation, and makes the following findings of fact and

conclusions of law:

1. The State of California (State) and Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (Paskenta or

Tribe) entered into a class III gaming compact (Compact) on September 10, 1999.

2. The Compact includes provisions to protect the public health and safety. Under section

8.1.2 of the Compact, the Tribe agreed to ensure “the physical safety of Gaming Operation

patrons and employees, and any other person while in the Gaming Facility.” Section 10.1 of the

Compact provides: “The Tribe will not conduct Class III gaming in a manner that endangers the

public health, safety, or welfare . . . .”

3. An intra-tribal dispute now exists among Paskenta’s members. As a result of this

dispute, two groups claim tribal leadership rights and the right to possession and control of the

Rolling Hills Casino located in Corning, California (Casino). The intra-tribal dispute has

involved armed factions and has taxed the resources of the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office;

threats made in the past by representatives of each group have not been withdrawn. These

circumstances thus pose an ongoing threat to the public health, safety and welfare.

4. The court has jurisdiction over this case under section 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the

State’s claim arises under federal statutes and the federal common law. See Cabazon Band of

Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997).

5. The State has made a clear showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its claim

because the ongoing tribal standoff and the threat of continued activity by armed groups at and in

the vicinity of the Casino breaches the Tribe’s duties under the Compact.

6. The State has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to redress the injuries it will

suffer if the Tribe is not enjoined. Those injuries include, without limitation, the threat of

physical violence against residents of California and members of the Tribe.

7. The equities clearly favor the State and its interests in protecting the public health,

safety, and welfare.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3


8. Issuance of this preliminary injunction will serve the public interest by preserving the

status quo at the time of the State’s filing of this case,1 and avoiding injury to the people of the

State, until the final resolution of this case.

9. No bond is necessary for the court to grant this preliminary injunction.

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for good cause

appearing, the court grants the parties’ stipulated request for this preliminary injunction.

The court orders that the Tribe, and all of its officers, agents, servants, employees and

attorneys and all persons acting under the Tribe’s direction and control, including both groups

currently claiming to constitute the tribal government, are hereby ENJOINED AND

RESTRAINED from:

1. Attempting to disturb, modify or otherwise change the circumstances currently in effect

with respect to operation of the Rolling Hills Casino in Corning, California.

2. Deploying any armed personnel of any nature within 100 yards from the Casino, the

property on which the Casino is located, and tribal properties surrounding the Casino including

the nearby hotels, gas station, and RV park (collectively, Tribal Properties).

3. Possessing, carrying, displaying, or otherwise having firearms on the Tribal Properties.

This preliminary injunction will remain in effect until resolution of the case by settlement

or judgment or the court’s further order.

The court directs the parties to appear at a status conference on October 2, 2014 at 2:30

p.m.

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2014.

1 In making this finding regarding preservation of the status quo, the court relies on the parties’ stipulation and is not making a final determination that the status quo thus preserved is necessarily “the last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy . . . .” See, e.g., Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir.1963).


kmueller

Signature-TNR

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

United States Department of the Interior

I:'\ REPLY REFER TO:

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS P<:!.cific Regional Office

2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 ·

Tribal Operations

Robert A .. Rosette, A~orney Rosette, LLP for Lewis Faction

565 West Chandler Boulevard, Suite 212 Chandler, Arizona 85225 CERT1FIEQ MAIL NO.: 7013 0600 00011876 6925 RETURN RECEJ~T REQUESTED .·

John Peebles, Attorney Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP For Reid Faction

2020LStreet, Suite 250 Sacramento, California 95825 CE.RTlflEOMAILN0.:70130600000118766932 'RETURN ~ECEtPT REQUESTED

Lester J. Marston, Attorney Law Offices of Rapport and Marston for Ayala Faction

405 W. Perkins Street· Ukiah, California .95482 CERTIFIEt>MAllNO.: 7013060000011876 6949 RETU~N RECEIPT REQUESTED

Dear Mr. Rosette, Mr. Peebles, amfMr. Marsto~·; ·

FEB ll ZB14

The purposlil ofthiseorresp~~~enc~tsto informv()Y:of:mydecisH~rireaatdl~gtbe•Notices of Appeal . dated June 14,· 201$, October a, ~3;Stand Oct'om,;r9, !01l,filed?lnac®rdance With ~SCFtt. Part 2.9 .. by the Reid Factip:~~the Lewts Fa~ion,Jmdthe AyaJa:Ffciftrni.rt9'1Pect~~1'ly:th~sj:-ppeaf,s relate te the

· actions of the.Superi1ntendeAt; Central CaHforni a Af,~~i:q,: r~tu.rcttiin1.tht ta·ctit-~$:,t() '¢antract with. tbe ·Bureau ofl ndHan Affalrs {&l~l "'r!lier the lndia.n SeJf-~t.$,rmtnatlQ·n,ant"<'.fi~h1c.titin ~S,tS:tlr'l·~ Act · (ISDEAA,),' PuhlUc Law 9~638; 's4'Dmitted by.eaeh tadfoit. .. , . . · ·· ·. ·. · . . . ·. · .. ,

I

The Reid Facth:m, con.sisti ng Of Me>rris Reid, Janice Devine, Dix:ie. Jackson, Harold Hammond, ~md Frank Fernandez, timely filed a Notice of Appeal, dated June 14, 20131 of the Superlntende'nt's May 1~, 2013, decision. The Reid Faction cites two decisions in the Superintendent'sMay 16, 20U,.correspondence as the subject of the appeal. First, the Superintendent's decision to recognize tl!le council elected as a . result of the December 1, 2012, election consisting of: Nancy Ayala, Chalrpersan; Reggie Lewis, Vice-Chairperson; Tract Brechbuel, Secretary; Karen Wynn, Treasurer; (:hance.Alberta1

Member-at-Large; CharlesSargosa, Member-at-Large; and Carl Buzz Bushman, Member-at·targe. Second, the Superintendent's decision to return the Reid Faction1srequf;lstto contract under Public Law 93-638with the BIA.

The Lewis Faction, consisting of Reggie Lewis, Chairman; Carl "Buzz" Bushman, Vtce ChaJtman; Irene Waltz, Secretary; Chance Alberta, Treasurer;Melvin Espe, Member ... at:-Large; David Castillo, Member-at-Large; and Lynn Chenot, Member-at-Large, timely filed a Notice ofAppeaJ, elated October 3, 2013, of th~ Superintendent's S~pternber 4, 2013; deci~ion. The Lewis Factio,n.ceites three appeaJable issues'°f the Superintenden:rs decision to return the Lewis Faction's neguest without action due tohls lack of Jurisdiction because of theReid Faction's appeal pending be.fore the Reg~onal Director. First,the Lewis Facti.on asserts the Superintendent" ... failed to cite.any de.Olinatlon criteria, legal basis, or lawful reason for refusing to act upon the Tribe's 638 Contract Proposal;" Seco.nd, the Lewis Faction .asserts" ... the IBIA Orders and the applicable law all dearly direct the Superintendent to perform his duty.and his responsl1bilttyto.det~m1'.line which indMduals are authorized Tribal offieials empoweredte>apply for and executea638comtrac:tforFY 2013.'l Third~" ... the BIA has not lived up to its duties under its trust relationship to mak.e dear that the current governing boc:J.v [is} occupying the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino.''

The Ayala Faction, consisting of the Tribal Council led by Nancey Ayala, timely filed a No~ite of Appeal, dated October 9, 2013, of the Superintendent's September 4, 2013, decision1• The Ayala faction Cites the Superintendent's decision to return without action, the Ayala Faction's P.L. 93 .. 638al!>'plicationfor · a new three-year contract, .Fiscal Years 20:13~201i5;·because the Superintendent was .precluded from actlngupon·the Ayala Faction's tequest·due tothe·at.>,peaJ peoc:Hng before the lnteriorJ~oard of Indian .· Appeals (IBIA), citing BIA's reliance uponPicayu.ne Rand}etia oftheChu~chansi Indians; Morris Reid; Dora Jones, Dixie Jackson, and Harold Hammond v. Pacific Regional Director; Bureau of lndiem Affairs; Docket No IBIA 13-045, Order dated April 2, 2013, as the appeal able issue.

In the Orderof A:prlt 2; 2013,i.nPkayune Rancheriaoftl'trt~hu1<¢hr:ini/Jfl~lf{rJSi MotrJiReil/,:OortJJon11s,. Dixie Jackson,.·andt'!/arold H:ommondv. Pacific.Rt1.giml.t11Jf1inn;tar,.su~quoftndk',mAHairs1,~~uf)ra, HUA (Board) states "without det&rmtnlngwhethert~f! l)itn,denevof this a~~.a,I, tllrt:der the fa~sof this

, '"' ,

1 On No'ABmber 13. 2013vthe Pacitc::~l~:>nal:Ofllce·~i~th•Relld FltoUon'$ ~Otion·~o Ol$miss the "untimely"· Notice ofAppeif.fHed by the Ayata,Facti¢rr. Jrt aAettef;~at~ Oeoem~er 2. 20.13,;c;l~e!'lled the motion citing 25 QJ;R P~nt 4, 15, compotatlon oftim,e, which states 1'cor;npwta)i0n a.hall in~e the. tast day of the period, unless·· iti.s ~ Saturday •. a Sun~, 9r a t~al .bQlida~ .• Jn wf'lh::h4t~S!tt.tb~ peric,id runs· unttltheead of the next day which is. not il.<:Satur.day, a Sunday, ·Qr a 1•1~~Jiday." aoetc~tl'1e ~13·GoV$m~ent shu~owni from October 1,: 201a,ctc:>'Q~ob>er 17, ~013, the '~la F•e;tlrari w11s.11ot·affQrdeli! th' opP4)r;t.tinlty to submit their Notice of .an Appeal until· ©eto~er ,1;j·. 20.13, otthe e~d of:ttil&1iftE»d ctay toltowino:0cito~r .~; 20'13; when the. BIAwas reo~ened. · · · ·

I

l I

case, divests BIA of jurisdiction to consider a request on behalf oft.he Tribe for a newcof'ltract for FY 2013, the Board grants BIA jurisdiction to consider such a request{ or t"equests)." Further, in the Juty 10, 2013, Order C~ncei:nil)g BIA Jurisdiction Over FY 2013 Contract Proposals and Over FY 2012 Contract Matters, and OrderDirecting.andAllowing Responses to Api)eHant's Supplemental Submission, the IBtA states: "Arly issues regarding the jurisdiction ofthe Superintendentto address proposals or requests while Appellants' appeal is pending before. the RegionaLDirectorshouh:I be resolved by the Regional Director." Thus t~e Board's Order provides me the authority to hear these· appeals, as they are all related to the ISDEAA contract proposals of the Picayun~ Rancheriadf Chukchansi Indians for Fiscal Years 2013-2015.

All the appealspertaintoa request fora new ISOEAA contract fort.he PicayuneRancheriaof Chukchansi Indians for FY 2013•2015. On. December 10, 2013, due to the related subject matter of the appe.a1s,.and in accordanc.ewith Title 25,.Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.18, GonsoUd:.ati.on of

, . ' . ' .. , '

Appeals, I exercised my discretionary authority to combine the related appeals and issue one decision to resolve them. In addition, each party was given the opportutllty to submit any final a.rgument$ to this office before a decision is issued2•

The leaders:hip of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukctiansl lndlan!ttas be~n embroiled indtsputes'S1111ce the December 3, 2011, election. The hold-over officers (lndividu1als.notup forelectiortarid wttose ,

i . - .,_. ' • . . - . "

terms had not ex:pired) that remained on the Tribal Council were Nancy Ayala, Jennif'ef'StanJey and Nokomis Hernandez3• It appears the 2011election was conducted in accordance with.the Tribe's Constitution adopted on October 22, 1988, and the Election Ordinance adopted on Octot>er21, 2010. Under the 1988Constitution, the Tribal Council has staggered terms and the regulaftrlbal Ellection held on December 3, 2011, was.for the foL1rTribal Council seats whose terms hac:l~>tpired. Tne .201a . . . . ' . ' ' ~. .' .,

· election results reflec;t that Morris.Reid, Dora Jones, Dixie Jackson and Harold Hammond, sr. 1 received the highest number of votes in, the electlon4• · Ho.wever, multl'pfe can'd~'dates runni;l'l.i in the .efec.tton. appealed to the Etection Comml.ttee challenging eHgibillty efHarold Hammond,Sr., to be seated ~s a. member of the Tribal Council, claiming that Mr. Hammond should have never been qu'$tlfie'dto run for office as he did not meet the eligibility requtrements5• The appe·als of Mr.Hamrpond;s eligibility to run for office led toa disagreement overwhetberthe,R'eld Facti,onwasd;ulv installed o'n to the council in accordance with the Constitution. The R•idf~Ction claimed to b~ d11l~·seated at theOecember.26, · 2011, Trl1bakCountilme;~lng, ln'aecordanee withtri;bal •. faw. TheLe:WiSoFactloh cU.sput~dwhetherthe e I ected Tri bat Courtdl was,p,rf)petty sea~e~ and rernafr'l:fl4 in offiteJ:n aocordan·pe wfth trjf:)·al )la.w. The record does notJeflect i·f the questJon whetlller tbe·e'leat~d F\eid ~a~i~nwas'pl:'Q,p~.rty seated in accordance with Tribal law was finally resolved and this issue ~su'ltS'dl~oMgoh•1gtntemal leadership disputes with both: factions claiming to be the autllorfied:c·gaverntl'li body. The recEi>rd shows the

2 The December 10, '2013, le~ter pro'Vided a deadlirie of .:lanu.~ 7', ,20·14, to ~brt:J,IUht\l arguments; howewr, on January 6, 2014 •. the svperint$1'.'lcfentrorwardedarequest'.fmllltheAyalaFa~tion tQ,extend t.~ deadline .to January .10, 2014. ·.tn·accQrdance with 25 CFR § 2.16,· QnJen~aiY·.7ri014,,f~('IJ'ntftdtfle:;re.Q.'4es·tto extend the deadline to January 10, 2014. Afl arguments were tUbmiltedQrJ>()strnarktid'b~·J~t:Juaty10,,2014. 3 Therecord reflects that .. Nokomis HEm;tandez was .. appQJnt•~·by thE1"ftibalCQµn~ltore~lac:e eatrick Hammond, Ill. . · .•.. • · · · ·· · · 4 See February 1, 2013; AdmJnietrati..e Record, Tab F, $$1 5 See February 1, 2013, Ad,minis~r:atiwReooflQ,·Tab F, 59,~0.64,'63, ~nd65.

Lewi:s F.action held a General Council meeting on March 10, 20126; in arrattempt to.settl,e tile: dispute, but the vaU dity of the meeting and the actions adopted at t.hat meeting are con~ested by the Reid Faction. The Reid Faction did not participate in this meeUng and challenges they~Hdity oHhe meeting, claiming it was not called and conducted by the legitimate Tribal Council. ··

It appears the Tribe was still embroiled in an intra~tribal dispute:between the Reid Fletion and the Lewis Faction when a December 1,.2012, electi,on was held by the Lewis Faction; The re~o.rd reflects the December i, 2012, electli:m was conductedin accordance with thetribe!sConstitutld:nad(>ptect ,on October 22; 1988, and th.e Elect1on Ordinance amended on September 20, 2012. TheTr:lbaJCouncil has staggered terms and a regular tribal election was conducted on December, i,.201z..forthe three Tribal Council seats whose terms had expired. As indicated by th~ ~cembe.r :J;,2012, election report signed by Dominque Carrillo on January 3, 2013, the hold.-over.officers that remained om the Tribal Council were Reggie Lewis, Chance Alberta, Tracey Brechbuel and Karen Wynn and th;atNancy Ayala, Carl Bushman and Charles Sargosa received the highest numberof votes in.the election. ·the Refd · Faction did l'lot partieipate In this electiornnd co.ntends it was not a valid tribal election ~~cal;Jse it was not held by th~ legitimate tri.bal government orElecti.on Committee (dµeto the Reid Factlon suspending Dominique Carrillo, Dana Hall and Orianna Walker from 'their.positions on the Election Committee'). Further, they challenge the inclusion of Reggie Lewis, Chance Alberta, Karen Wynn and Tracey Brechbuel, on the Tribal Council, as those four seats are the same seats the .Reid1Faction claimed to occupy. The record does not reflect that the Decemberl, 20121 election resolved the pending leadership dispute regardf~g the interpret~tion of the installation of newly elected officers from the past e.lection.

The Ayala/lewis FactiontemporarNysuspendedTribal Coundl rner11bers·Kareh WYn:n:$flcf~racey Brech bu.el on January 24, 2013, due to allegations concerning misuse of tri~al funds. In correspondence dated January 31, 2013, the Ayala/Lewis Faction provided notice of the te'l'l'l:p()rary suspensions to Karen Wynn and Tracey Brechbuehl pending the outcomeofan investigatiqn (.the Ayala Faction later disp1.1ted the validityofthese ~spensions).

·~ • v

The re~ord refl:ects thatt;nothaf"intr~:trfbal dis.put.: arosespUttitiftheAyala/LewJs Factionla:pparently resulting from a•Jons taker1btthe Ay<tlafactlon cm February 21t;2013; wherein they r~'moved the entireTribalcouncil, with the ex:eeptton of Ay~la, and replaced them with anotherTribafCouncil. A series of suspensions and removals occurred 1n b .. ot. h factions, bu.tJtJs uncl.ear ileither h1d.;aqu:orum . . ..

of the Tribal Counci.I,

In a.purported attem;pt to resolv,ethe dtspute, the LEt\Yis·t;aci:i~n attertigt~at'~1Jtlltz~thireferend;liJm procedure, and on Jt.me 19, 2013,the Indian Dispute Resolutior;i'~'f'YicE!S·~rtJf~a1~:the re.suJts;of·the referendum and held a eeneral 'ouncil m'etlng~n Sec~t,ltlberl4,~013. At 50me ~~ii1t1 .foHowlng the Gerieral CounclfMeeti n&1 the lewis and Reid Fa~';(};;l't·re:cof'leiled tbl~I rdlfferente:s and' began workf.ng toge.tfl@r. ln a letter qatedJanuary 2, 2014,·the'Reid·af'ld•.~ewis.FattfC;ms su,,rti:Jtted·a.Joint

~ Se.e Febru~ry.1, .2013, Admini$tratl~•Reoord;·Tab F, 6• 7 See February 1, 201·3, ~drrj;lnistratiw Re¢ord; Tab·F1 35.

response to this Office's DecemberlO, 2013, letter. The Lewis/Reid Faction state" ..• the two separate P.L. 93-638 contract applications for FY 2013-2015, are renewed, by way of th~s correspondence, as a single contract application for yo.ur consideratioli.''8

This Office received two reports of a TribaLElection held Oecerj'.lber 7, 2()13, submitted by the . Lewis/Reid Faction and the Ayala Faction. According to memorandums ftom the Centrlll Caltfornia Agency Superintendent dated January 15, 2014, and January 22, 2014, the combined Lewts/Reid Faction reported its election was conducted pursuant to the Tribe's Constitution adopted on October 22, 1988, and an Election Ordinance amended on October 17, 2013, while the Ayala Faction December 7, 2013, tribal election was conducted in accordancewiththe Tribe's Constitution adopted on October 22, 1988, and the Election Ordinance amended on September23, 20130'Followingthe

. December 7, 2013, elections,attornevs for.bothfactions submitted correspondence arguingthe merits oftheir elections, Y·rgiflg BIA recognition of respective elections, an~ discussing the invalidity of the other faction's etection.9 Despite efforts by the· various factions, the two tribal electio!'l:s .heJd on December7, 20b,did not resolve the intra-tribal dispute over the Interpretation regarding the installation of newly elected officers and the controversy carried overto·t'he subsequent elections.

In Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, Clint Ha/ftown, Tim Twogun~, and Gary Wheeler v Eastern Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs,, Docket No. IBJA.12 .. QOS, Orde.·.r Vacating O.ecision, theJBIA

,· ' • ' <

states," ... at leas.t since 1996, the Board has recognized that BIA has the authorityto make a determination on tribal leadership (when the situation [has] deteriorated tothe pointthat recognition ohome government wasessentialforFederalpurpose.s.' Wadena v. ActingMlrmeapo/is Area Director, 301BIA 130, 145 (1996) (emphasis added). A corollary is that Bl"A has '.bothJhe authority and responsibility to interpret tribal law when necessary to carry out the government.::to-government relationship with the tribe.' United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee lndlems v. Muskogee Area tpirecttJr, 22 IB.IA 75, 80(1992) (emphasis added); see also Ransom v. Babbitt,.69 F.Su.pp. 2d 141, is1-s2(0~0 .. c. 1999) (Department has authority to review tribal procedures 'When it is forced to recognize! tr~bal leadership) •. AndJt is wetl,established that irrexecuti·ng responsibilities for carrying on government r:elationswith a tribe and providing necessary day-to-day services, BIA may not effectively create a hiatus in tribal government by simultaneously recognizing two tribal governments or declining to reco.gni;ze any trib111I government. Goad/ace v. Grassrope, 108 F.2d 3'35, .338~39(8th Cir, 1,983:)."

' ' ' ' , '~, ' '

·. .

In Steven .R Smith·. vActing Pgclfit ~~gionatDlrector, Bul'•u ottnt11an Afl<iirsi Pocket ~ •. ·:42 IBtA ~24! Order DismJssingAppeal, the HUA staies; ''. •• it isw1;r~l~ettl•tl"that a v111·lld etectionHeld durrogthe pendency of an a.p,pe~l moot~ ~ny questionscon<:fr~ln.g priorJrtbil lea~~Bhlp;(Seee;g~tWlllit;tms v. Alaska Regional Oite€:tor, 391BIA 140, 142(2ooa); Kost%Jjfli/.•V. soutf¥em P·'tains R~glonf;JU;>irectM, 35 IBIA 205(2000); Roso/es .v. SacramentoArta Director, 3418£l12S, 125(1999); Hamlltonv.A~ting Sacramento Area Director, 29 lBIA 12i;, 123 (1996);. l/i#f;Qas.v. Sacramento. Arel'l Direddr, 24JBIA 150,

. .

. 8 No'formal request mee(inQ the req1,1lrtments sefftlrth irJ i!~OFR § $90:, •si;it:>,part c, ·has· been submitted for eonsideratton bytt\e!Lewl$'1Reid Faction. . .. •.. .. .• • .. · . •. . .· .·. •.

,Q Altho~h the.• L.ewi$ and.Reltt faetlQl:'ls ha\eapparently ·~~r:mi.fec:f and ar• n()!N ~rldnt tQ~er,the. Reid Facticm has two appeal~· l<).eriQtng •befq)re the tBl.4dil11imtfl9 td·te ·the legitlma-e ~rrying ·Q~ of the Picayune Rancheria, IBl.A Docket Nos. 13-04$ .and•13-081. · ·

151-52 (1993). '[T)he determination.of tribal leadership is quintessentially an lntra:-tribal matten:aising issues of tribal sovereignty, and therefore the. Department should defer to tribal resoh.,ition of the matter through an appropriate tribal.forum, including the normahlectoraJprocess.' Hamilton, 29 IBIA at 123."

While this Office defers to tribal interpretations of tribal laWSi it has not been possible to ascertain which factions actions are consistent with Tribal Law. There is no dispute thatthe Constitution of the Picayune Reservation, adopted by the Tribe October 22, 1988, istheTr.ibe's supreme governing document. However, the record reflects numerous instances where the Electi.on Ordin·anc:e was amenped by the various compositions of the opposing factions, 10 purportedly in accord.a.nee with the Tribe's Constitution. The record also shows that multiple Tribal Courts were formed by the opposing factions, in attempts to resolve these issues. There is no provision in the Tribe's Constitution or federal law that provides the BIA with the authority to determine which of the opposing factions interpretation ofthe Tribe's law is correct, disputes regarding leadership of Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians are controlled by tribal law, and fa.fl within the excl us Ive jurisdiction o.f the tribe, and BIA does not have the authority to cl~ter:mine the Tribe's permanent leadership. The record does notreflect whether recent tribal.eJectioris were conducted In accordance with tribal governing documents. As such, la/lirm the Superintendent's derision to retum the ISDEAA contract requests of all three factions, and vacate the Superintendent's decision to recognize the results of the December l, 2012, election.

The situation at the Picay.une Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians has deteriorated to a point that recognition of ag<:>vernment is essential forthe purpose .of contracting,under the ISDEAA, and to prevent any furtherhiatus ofthis govemment·to-government relationship wtth the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians. Therefore, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, will conduct business, on an iMterim basis, with th'e last uncontested Tribal Co.uncil11 electe:diDecember2010, consisting of: Dora Jones, Chance Alberta, Jennifer Stanley, Nancy Ayala, Morris Reid, Reggie Lewis, and Nokomis Hernandez, until such time as th.e issue is resolved in accordance with the Tribe's laws. ,

Thelevel of<:onflfctto which thlsdi,sputeordisp1Jtes.have risensJnce the December 2011, election is extremely concerning ttHhis Offi~e, ,In February 20l2it was reP{ortedthat an attemptto take over theTribalOflice by one of thefactipnslecfto vidlence resultihg';in a ~tabblrigofone Individual, and requiring the Ma;deracountl/ She.riff's E>eP'artment t~ .intervene. In Februar:y 2013 it was reported that a f actton occupied the Tribal. Officerthreate n ing viGh~i!l~e wtth respectto anyone who attempted to remove the factton, agalnleadlrig tq interventionbythe'Sheriff's Departmentu. ·In addition to

--------------· ., 10 While this Ofllc~ hat ~et>eived ,a copy ()f two Cif the ve~ions·of the amended EtectiQn Oidtl'laru~e. ·the other \ersions !:lave been addre1sed.·~ the factions in various co•poridence •. (See'S&r>t&nlQfW 10, 2013, letter from Sominique Cemlf(}to the General Membership; January 16, 2P14, memQmndum from Superintendent to . Regional Director; Jan1;1ary,.22,. 2014 · memo~ndum. from· Superint.;nttent to Regional, Of rector; December .16, ·2013, letter from Lewis/Reid Faction to ~egion.~1 Director; Exhibit C)·.. · 11 See Acting Governor Lest~ Warane4•latjo, Cf/eyl!fn,,_ an,f Aia{>aho Trib.~. v, Southem PJ~insRegiorial Director, 5alBIA 121, 124 (2011} . · .· · .. · . . . . · . · . . .. ··· .. 12 As indicated by the february.27, 2013, Sierra Star article titled "Tribal Leadership.Splitttt.Ploayune Rancheria. · · ·

these reports, the dispute over the Tribe's leadership has led to multiple financial hardships includi.ng

reported defaults on loans connected with the Tribe's gaming facility. In addition, many .Fede rat

agencies have been unable to determine with whom to conduct business amidstthe dispute, causing

essential Tribal programs that are funded by the Federal government to cease operation1a, including

the loss of NAHASDA funds. Due to these increasing issues there appears to be several grou.nds for

finding it would be in the public interest to put this decision into immediate effect. As such, I will be

filing a motionwith the IBIA t<? place my decision into immediate effect.

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, 801 North Quincy Street,

Arlington, Virginia 22203, in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR § 4.310and 4.349. VourNotke of Appeal to the Board must be signed by you or your attorney and must be mailed within 3(}days of the

date you receive this decision. It should clearly identify the decision being appealed. tf possible,

attach a copy of the decision. You must send copies of your Notice o.f Appeal to (1) The Assistant

Secretary- Indian Affairs, 4160 MIB, U.S. Department of the interior, 1849 C Street, N.W .. Washington,

D.C. 20240, (2) each interested party known to you, and (3) this office. Your Notice of .6,ppeal sent to

. the Board of Indian Appeals must certify that you have sent copies to these parties. ff you file a

Notice of Appeal, the Board of Indian Appeals will notify you of further appeal procec;lures. If no

appeal is timely filed, this decision will become final for the Department of the Interior atthe

expiration of the appeal period. No extensions of time may be granted for filing a N~otice of Appeal.

Sincerely,

cc: See AttachedJ;>istribution List

13 See Picayune Rancheria o~Chuk~hansl /ndlan1, ttt al,1. v: $~ B Henriquez, et al, No. CV-13-01917-P.H~CGC, Order, OecembE&r3o, 2013,·atf?egeSl.ine 5 ~

Michael Black, Director Bureau of Indian Affairs

1849 C Street, N.W. MS - 4606 - MIB Washington, DC 20240

Troy Burdick, Superintendent Bureau of Indian Affairs Central California Agency 650 Capital Mall, Suite 8-500 Sacramento, CA 95814

Congressman Jeff Denham United States Congress 1730 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515

Congressman Tom Mcclintock United States Congress 434 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Carolyn O'Neil, Administrator U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Southwest Office of Native American Programs 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85004

John Anderson, Sheriff Madera County Sheriffs Office 14143 Road 28 Madera, CA 93638

Paula Hart, Director Office of Indian Gaming, Indian Affairs MS - 3657..,. MIB 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC20240

Interior Board of Indian Appeals United States Department of the Interior 801 North Quincy Street, MS 300 QC Arlington, VA 22203

Office of the Solicitor Pacific Southwest Region United States Department of Interior 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712 Sacramento, CA 95825

Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Office of the Governor Edmund G. ·Brown, Jr. ATIN: JacobAppelsrnith, Senior Advisor to the Governor c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814

Denise Zvanovec, Grants Management Officer Management & Technical Services Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street, M/S ORC•2 San Francisco, CA 94105

Board of Supervisors County of Madera Madera County Government Center 200 West FourthStreet Madera, CA 93637

National Indian Gaming Commission ATIN: Maria Geoff, Senior Attorney 1441. L Street NW; Suite 9100 Washington, DC: 20005

EXHIBIT E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Michael A. Ranita - Senior Court Reporter

1

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK : CIVIL TERM : Part 45

----------------------------------------------x

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE,Index: 652140/13

Plaintiff,

-against-

CHUKCHANSI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY, THE BOARD OF THE CHUKCHANSIECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THETRIBE OF PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THECHUKCHANSI INDIANS, THE TRIBAL COUNCIL OFTHE TRIBE OF PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THECHUKCHANSI INDIANS, THE PICAYUNERANCHERIA TRIBAL GAMING COMMISSIONRABOBANK, N.A., GLOBAL CASH ACCESS, INC.,NANCY AYALA, TRACEY BRECHBUEHL, KARENWYNN, CHARLES SARGOSA, REGGIE LEWIS,CHANCE ALBERTA, CARL BUSHMAN, and BANKOF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------x

60 Centre StreetNew York, New York 10007July 2, 2013

B E F O R E: HONORABLE MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER, SCJ

A P P E A R A N C E S:

LATHAM & WATKINS, LLPattorneys for the Plaintiff53rd at Third, 885 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022BY: ROBERT J. MALIONEK, ESQ.

Michael RanitaSenior Court Reporter

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2013 INDEX NO. 652140/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/09/2013

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


2

A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued.)

LAW OFFICES OF RAPPORT AND MARSTON405 West Perkins StreetUkiah, California 95482BY: LESTER J. MARSTON, ESQ.

LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP77 Water Street, 21st FloorNew York, New York 10005BY: PETER T. SHAPIRO, ESQ.

SCHINDLER, COHEN & HOCHMAN, LLP100 Wall Street, 15th FloorNew York, New York 10005BY: JONATHAN L. HOCHMAN, ESQ.

- and -STEVEN R. SCHINDLER, ESQ.

ROSETTE, LLP565 W. Chandler Boulevard - Suite 212Chandler, Arizona 85225BY: ROBERT ROSETTE, ESQ.

PRESS LAW FIRM, PLLCThe Chrysler Building405 Lexington Avenue - 7th FloorNew York, New York 10174BY: MATTHEW J. PRESS, ESQ.

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP30 Rockefeller PlazaNew York, New York 10112BY: ROBERT S. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


53

Proceedings

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. MARSTON: No objection to the Court receiving

the letter in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, we are up against a clock

deadline. You folks need copies of this, and so do I. I

just signed it, but I think you are going to have to come

back at 2:00 to get it, because my part clerk has to go and

he has to be the one to make these copies.

MR. MALIONEK: Yes, your Honor, we will be back

here at 2:00 in order to pick those up so that we could

serve copies on all Counsel.

THE COURT: All right. There is still 15 minutes.

Wait a minute, we still have 15 minutes, yes. I forgot we

have a fast clock.

Why don't -- Steve, why don't you do these now; is

that all right?

THE COURT CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: We will go off the record.

* * * *

I, Michael Ranita, a Senior Court Reporter for

the State of New York do hereby certify that the foregoing

is a true and accurate transcript of the stenographic

minutes taken within.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


7

Proceedings

somehow the Tribal Government under the Ayala Faction is

using those vendors to further their rents, they could ask

their questions and we'll respond. You could order us to

respond within a reasonable period, like 24 hours or 48

Hours, and then if they dispute that, then they could come

in and file objections with the Court regarding that payee,

and then the Court can resolve the objection.

MR. HOCHMAN: Your Honor, that all sounds nice, and

we'd certainly take that, but in addition, I think that we

should have some official reporting from Rabobank. For

example, we should at least get duplicates of the bank

statements so at the ends of the month we could reconcile

and make sure that no one inadvertently waives off any

payments to their brother-in-law or anything of that nature.

MR. MARSTON: We have no objection of providing

copies of bank statements.

THE COURT: That's fine. What we've got -- I want

to clarify. We are on the record now, so we are getting

some things done that should be memorialized.

First, what do you call, politically, the manager

that we are going to put into that?

MR. MARSTON: Giffen Tan.

THE COURT: And what is his title?

MR. MARSTON: General manager.

THE COURT: General manager of the --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


9

Proceedings

Rabobank requires two signatories on the checks, just as a

procedural matter. He indicated that he was checking with

that.

Of course, your Honor, I believe that if the Court

were to issue an order saying that the checks shall be

signed by Mr. Tan, that that should be sufficient. To the

extent there is any issue with respect to that from

Rabobank's perspective, if we could have, as a backup, to

say that the checks would be signed either by Mr. Tan or by

two individuals, Mr. Tan and another member of management,

could we please work that into the proposed order as well,

just as a contingency?

MR. MARSTON: I would agree. The actual agreement

between the CEDA board and the bank only required one

signature, but the casino's internal control standards

require two. And it would be inappropriate for -- in my

opinion, your Honor, I think in violation of the casino's

internal controls, to have Mr. Tan signing his own check.

Under their internal controls, the casino, not the bank,

requires two signatures. So I think, your Honor, if we had

Mr. Tan sign the signatures, along with one other casino

employee that would remain nameless that would be designated

by Mr. Tan, that would have the right to sign those checks

consistent with the casino's minimum internal control

standards and general accepting accounting principles.

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT G

Documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF … · 10/1/2014 · Morris Reid, Reggie Lewis, and Nokomis Hernandez, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 11. Attorney Les Marston