Non-consitutional zones of California.

[Technosoul]

A number of women who worked for the Thunder Valley gambling building wanted to sue their employer on a number of discrimination charges, but the gambling house is located on Native Ameircan reservatons and operated by Native Americans, the employees who are seeking money claim that their consitutional rights were violated - sex and age discrimination was claimed. The offended employees are not Native Americans.

However every state court has tossed out the cases and refused to hear them, because the judge said that the Native American reservations are off limites for state and federal courts. The U.S. government has no authority to try cases if the events occur on Indian lands, and although those reservations are located in the middle of California they are not really a part of the American country. (more or less).

They women could seek a hearing at Native Ameircan hearings (trials) but they do not use the consitution or our bill of rights, for determinating cases. And their views about such matters might be different then those of mainstream Ameirca or those of the woman's lib people.

The Thunder Vally Gambling and hotel employs many non- indians in their establishment. The American employees feel their rights be enforced by American laws and not by Native American opinons. (laws - if they have anything like wrote down?).

I will withhold my opinon till later, do you see anything in this news story worth debating about? Any comments other then a debate statement?

This news story was prepared and written by Technosoul (no links cause I don't have a webpage). My version was loosely based on story aired on channel 7 nightly news.

[Jack]

they are not really a part of the American country. (more or less).

The whole issue is pretty complicated.

Tribal sovereignty is the ability of a tribe to govern itself. In the United States it refers to the status of federally recognized American Indian tribes and pueblos, for which court decisions since the ratification of the United States Constitution have established legal doctrines that presume them to be sovereign "domestic dependent nations." Sovereignty is not given by an exterior government, but is recognized. In the United States the federal government has restricted the sovereignty of tribal governments... At the dawn of the 21st Century, the powers of tribal courts across the United States varied, depending on whether the tribe was in a public law 280 state or not. In states not under PL280, minor crimes by Indians against Indians are tried in tribal court, major crimes committed by Indians on a reservation are tried in U.S. courts. When crimes are committed by non-Indians against non-Indians on the reservation, the case goes to state court. Cases involving crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians on the reservation are tried in U.S. courts. In allegations of crimes committed by Indians against non-Indians on the reservation, except for major crimes, trials are set in tribal courts. Even in public law 280 states, many if not most tribes still maintain court systems that enforce tribal ordinances, much the same way municipal courts prosecute infractions that do not rise to the level of crimes under state law. Cases routinely appearing on tribal court dockets in public law 280 states include child custody cases, petty crimes, hunting violations and traffic violations. While tribal nations do not enjoy direct access to U.S. courts to bring cases against states, as sovereigns they do enjoy immunity against many lawsuits (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1980), unless a plaintiff is granted a waiver by the tribe or by congressional abrogation (Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 1978). The sovereignty extends to tribal enterprises (Local IV-302 Int=l Woodworkers Union of Am. V. Menominee Tribal Enterprises 1984), and tribal casinos or gaming commissions (Barker v. Menominee Nation Casino, 1995). The Indian Civil Rights Act does not allow actions against an Indian tribe in federal court for deprivation a substantive rights, except for habeas corpus proceedings (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1978). Tribal and pueblo governments today launch far-reaching economic ventures, operate growing law enforcement agencies and adopt codes to govern conduct within their jurisdiction but the United States retains control over the scope of tribal law making. Laws adopted by Native American governments must also pass the Secretarial Review of the Department of Interior through the BIA.

Source

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood they are not really a part of the American country. (more or less). The whole issue is pretty complicated. Tribal sovereignty is the ability of a tribe to govern itself. In the United States it refers to the status of federally recognized American Indian tribes and pueblos, for which court decisions since the ratification of the United States Constitution have established legal doctrines that presume them to be sovereign "domestic dependent nations." Sovereignty is not given by an exterior government, but is recognized. In the United States the federal government has restricted the sovereignty of tribal governments... At the dawn of the 21st Century, the powers of tribal courts across the United States varied, depending on whether the tribe was in a public law 280 state or not. In states not under PL280, minor crimes by Indians against Indians are tried in tribal court, major crimes committed by Indians on a reservation are tried in U.S. courts. When crimes are committed by non-Indians against non-Indians on the reservation, the case goes to state court. Cases involving crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians on the reservation are tried in U.S. courts. In allegations of crimes committed by Indians against non-Indians on the reservation, except for major crimes, trials are set in tribal courts. Even in public law 280 states, many if not most tribes still maintain court systems that enforce tribal ordinances, much the same way municipal courts prosecute infractions that do not rise to the level of crimes under state law. Cases routinely appearing on tribal court dockets in public law 280 states include child custody cases, petty crimes, hunting violations and traffic violations. While tribal nations do not enjoy direct access to U.S. courts to bring cases against states, as sovereigns they do enjoy immunity against many lawsuits (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1980), unless a plaintiff is granted a waiver by the tribe or by congressional abrogation (Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 1978). The sovereignty extends to tribal enterprises (Local IV-302 Int=l Woodworkers Union of Am. V. Menominee Tribal Enterprises 1984), and tribal casinos or gaming commissions (Barker v. Menominee Nation Casino, 1995). The Indian Civil Rights Act does not allow actions against an Indian tribe in federal court for deprivation a substantive rights, except for habeas corpus proceedings (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1978). Tribal and pueblo governments today launch far-reaching economic ventures, operate growing law enforcement agencies and adopt codes to govern conduct within their jurisdiction but the United States retains control over the scope of tribal law making. Laws adopted by Native American governments must also pass the Secretarial Review of the Department of Interior through the BIA. Source

Wow, that was fast and in great detail. So it seems that problems involving employee verses employer conficts would be delt with by tribal courts. Assuming that sexual discrimination, if that did occur, would be a minor case and not a major crime.

This was not about rape or such, in fact I found no information about what the girls were complaining about. Perhaps they had to dress too sexy looking, or removed when they looked too old form being a waitress, or something like that, not sure. Perhaps a supervisor said something un-called for, suggesting a promotion for sex, or something along that line - not sure.

I did not use the "more stemulating" annoncment made on the nitely news. which went something like this "crimes being conducted on indian reservations are not getting a fair hearing in our state courts"

In my view Indians have had to experience discrimination for many years and so they of all people should know what that is like, and how to handle such cases. Or would they mumble "aha , now the shoe is on the other foot, white girl, how do like it now that it is your turn"?