7 ms·

What would happen if more parties start proxying their unlawful or at least dubious behaviour through Native American tribes like this? Some tribes seem to be w

What would happen if more parties start proxying their unlawful or at least dubious behaviour through Native American tribes like this? Some tribes seem to be willing to sell their immunity for enough money. I'm not from the U.S., what kind of actions could the U.S. government take?

neom 8y ago
Scott Tucker. Huge Asshole. https://jalopnik.com/convicted-payday-loan-mogul-scott-tucker-has-absolutely-1822496589 https://jalopnik.com/convicted-payday-loan-mogul-scott-tucke...
- kamarg 8y ago
  Keep in mind that Scott Tucker was convicted of mail fraud and making false statements to a bank long before starting his payday loan business. His brother Joel has also been charged (not sure if convicted) with a few felonies. The other brother Blaine committed suicide when the payday loan business where he was partners with Scott and worked with their mother started being investigated. Seems like the entire family was just a bunch of assholes and the tribal business was just a way to enable that. Related to the article, if a company was a legit tribal company and not just fictionally owned/run by the tribe, would this ruling still make sense? Or does it only hold if a non-tribal company is trying to use the tribe to skirt laws?
  - neom 8y ago
    My understanding from watching the Netflix episode about him is that it was primary due to the blatant nature of the abuse of sovereign status. That being said, when you see what else they had going on the Indian reservation thing becomes simply one bullet points in the depth of the scam.
    - kamarg 8y ago
      I haven't seen that episode but there were two things that really got the trouble started. First was funneling money from the payday loan company to fund his racing team. The other was his brother Joel selling fake debt to collectors claiming it came from Scott or one of the AMG portfolio companies. A whole lot of people that never had a loan suddenly started getting calls from debt collectors. Not to mention those debt collectors were pissed when they found out it was fake and/or sold to multiple other collectors.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    If it was legally owned by the tribe it would still run into issues with violating local state laws for any loans issues outside of tribal territories.
    - kamarg 8y ago
      That part I'm aware of. My question was not in reference to payday loans or the Tuckers. If a legit tribal company filed this patent, would the ruling be the same? Or does it matter that the patent was "tribal" only in an attempt to get around the review?
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        The latter. If they legitimately owned the patent (whether they filed it themselves or acquired it by purchase), then this case could have proceeded on its merits.
    - exclusiv 8y ago
      Yes but they have sovereign immunity so only the feds can come knocking. So it has to be a big enough enterprise or really devious to get in trouble with the feds.
- zyberzero 8y ago
  I can recommend the whole "Dirty Money" series that the article refers to. The episode about Scott Tucker was really interesting (and to me, an European), I had no idea that the Indian tribes were immune for certain prosecutions.
xoa 8y ago
The US Federal Government is the superior sovereign. Sovereign immunity is powerful but also specific in dealing with civil lawsuits, hence this very ruling. It doesn't apply to federal agency actions for example. It also in no way prevents Congress from carving out whatever exceptions it wants, in fact that's how civil lawsuits against the government in general happen, Congress passes laws saying "people may sue the government for this." It'll actually be most interesting to see how this might ultimately affect other entities that have been using it, such as State Universities. This ruling didn't specifically address that, as usual courts like to stay specific to the case. But in their final paragraph CAFC clearly acknowledged the parallels with other cases, and it's hard to see how the same logic of this ruling wouldn't apply to any other such entity too.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It'll actually be most interesting to see how this might ultimately affect other entities that have been using it, such as State Universities. It's hard to say, as State sovereign immunity is a Constitutional guarantee (11th Amendment) and thus in principle less subject to Congressional whim than the sovereignty of any other entity, when it comes to application of US law by US courts.
Spooky23 8y ago
Many people do. Native American nations are magnets for scam artists and various criminals. They are immune from state prosecution, so if they operate at a level below whatever the federal authorities care about, it’s lower risk.
- protomyth 8y ago
  > Many people do. Native American nations are magnets for scam artists and various criminals. Wanna back that one up with some statistics? > They are immune from state prosecution, so if they operate at a level below whatever the federal authorities care about, it’s lower risk. Well, not quite. It really depends on what you are talking about. Besides, NA preying on NA is often ignored, but don't screw with the non-NA because then you get the Feds and State cooperating.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Google “smuggling Native American reservation site:nytimes.com” for a quick intro. Smuggling, drug trafficking, and other things are common problems. It’s vicious and tragic cycle often driven by poverty and neglect. Many of these root issues are compounded by awful healthcare and other policies.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      That isn't a reservation exclusive problem. For example, since the introduction of meth, you'll see a lot of problems everywhere in rural areas (beats blowing up an apartment building). Plus smuggling has always been a rural problem. Its just a lot more direct for the feds to intervene on a reservation. It kills me to think people want US government healthcare after seeing what the government provides on reservations. I guess they figure since they would be serving "white folks" then it would be better. That also leaves a bad taste in my mouth (which had 3 operations because of a botched root canal).
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
Sangermaine 8y ago
This is quite a complex question, but the basic answer is that under US law native tribes are "domestic dependent nations". This means that they possess sovereignty as any separate nation would (which flows from Constitutional recognition of their pre-existing status), but it is a limited sort of sovereignty. Congress can limit that sovereignty through legislation and the federal government can make treaties with them. However, unless a treaty or federal statute removes a power, the tribe is assumed to possess it. In practical terms, addressing your question, if tribes keep trying to sell their sovereignty like this Congress can pass a law removing their sovereign immunity with respect to patents. And, in fact, moves have already started in that direction: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-allergan-patents-congress/senatormccaskill-drafts-bill-in-response-to-allergan-patent-maneuver-idUSKBN1CA2D0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-allergan-patents-congress... The tribes would probably be wise to knock this behavior off as it's almost certainly going to result in pieces of their sovereignty being carved away, because everyone seems to agree that this sort of scheme is an absurd abuse.
ttctciyf 8y ago
This idea was one of the strands of the biggest, hugest conspiracy theory of the 90's variously known as the Inslaw scandal, The Octopus, etc., which pulled into itself events surrounding a murder involving an obscure (23 member, iirc) group of Native Americans, the Cabazon: > Some believe Alvarez had discovered money-skimming by outsiders helping the tiny Cabazon Band of Mission Indians manage its fledgling casino. Others suspect, however, that he had stumbled onto plans for a top-secret weapons deal on reservation land. > Witnesses and court documents diverge considerably, however, on whether a secret partnership between the Cabazon tribe and the private security firm Wackenhut Corp. was a deal to provide security services, build a munitions arsenal or sell weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras, a U.S.-backed rebel group. [1] Trouble is, as far as your question goes, various government entities including the Justice Dept. and the CIA, etc. were the ones taking advantage of the territorial immunity of the tribe concerned (in various of the conspiracy scenarios, that is, which I in no way endorse, though I still read up on it when possible) If you're interested, for an overview of the wider ramifications, [2] & [3] are not-bad entry points. 1: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-murder-case-dropped-in-1981-ca-tribal-slaying-2010jul01-story.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-murder-case-dropped... 2: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/16/FBI-promis-part-1/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/16/FBI-promi... 3: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/mar/15/danny-casolaro-primer/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/mar/15/danny-cas...
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  Nice to see others still think of Danny Casalaro. PROMIS should be a huge deal here, he'll, Bill Hamilton used to frequent Schneider blog and even claim that back then the NSA was backdooring low level chip manufacturers, among many other interesting claims. That whole thing is still super relevant.
- smnrchrds 8y ago
  > Trouble is, as far as your question goes, various government entities including the Justice Dept. and the CIA, etc. were the ones taking advantage of the territorial immunity of the tribe concerned. I just had the scary thought of the US setting up Guantanamo-like prisons on reservations. If it was legally possible, they probably would have done it already.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
I expect will see more of it. Companies, especially public ones, may be regarded as sociopaths of greed. Any and all actions are divided from any morality unless the public acts back with government action. So any act that is a technicality in order to gain more wealth will be done. We've already seen contracts widely used as a way to dissolve the sovereignty of US states and bypass their laws. Further proxying through native american tribes is an easy leap to try to further subvert any morals or justice encoded by the public in law.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  We'll see less of it. The point of the court ruling was to prevent tribes from being used as legal proxies. If a company wants to transfer legal rights to a tribe, it means they're also going to need to transfer actual independent ownership interests as well. We've already seen contracts widely used as a way to dissolve the sovereignty of US states and bypass their laws. Contracts are enforced at the state level (not the federal level), so I'd like to know what cases you're referring to here?

neom 8y ago

Scott Tucker. Huge Asshole. https://jalopnik.com/convicted-payday-loan-mogul-scott-tucker-has-absolutely-1822496589 https://jalopnik.com/convicted-payday-loan-mogul-scott-tucke...

kamarg 8y ago
Keep in mind that Scott Tucker was convicted of mail fraud and making false statements to a bank long before starting his payday loan business. His brother Joel has also been charged (not sure if convicted) with a few felonies. The other brother Blaine committed suicide when the payday loan business where he was partners with Scott and worked with their mother started being investigated. Seems like the entire family was just a bunch of assholes and the tribal business was just a way to enable that. Related to the article, if a company was a legit tribal company and not just fictionally owned/run by the tribe, would this ruling still make sense? Or does it only hold if a non-tribal company is trying to use the tribe to skirt laws?
- neom 8y ago
  My understanding from watching the Netflix episode about him is that it was primary due to the blatant nature of the abuse of sovereign status. That being said, when you see what else they had going on the Indian reservation thing becomes simply one bullet points in the depth of the scam.
  - kamarg 8y ago
    I haven't seen that episode but there were two things that really got the trouble started. First was funneling money from the payday loan company to fund his racing team. The other was his brother Joel selling fake debt to collectors claiming it came from Scott or one of the AMG portfolio companies. A whole lot of people that never had a loan suddenly started getting calls from debt collectors. Not to mention those debt collectors were pissed when they found out it was fake and/or sold to multiple other collectors.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  If it was legally owned by the tribe it would still run into issues with violating local state laws for any loans issues outside of tribal territories.
  - kamarg 8y ago
    That part I'm aware of. My question was not in reference to payday loans or the Tuckers. If a legit tribal company filed this patent, would the ruling be the same? Or does it matter that the patent was "tribal" only in an attempt to get around the review?
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      The latter. If they legitimately owned the patent (whether they filed it themselves or acquired it by purchase), then this case could have proceeded on its merits.
  - exclusiv 8y ago
    Yes but they have sovereign immunity so only the feds can come knocking. So it has to be a big enough enterprise or really devious to get in trouble with the feds.
zyberzero 8y ago
I can recommend the whole "Dirty Money" series that the article refers to. The episode about Scott Tucker was really interesting (and to me, an European), I had no idea that the Indian tribes were immune for certain prosecutions.

xoa 8y ago

The US Federal Government is the superior sovereign. Sovereign immunity is powerful but also specific in dealing with civil lawsuits, hence this very ruling. It doesn't apply to federal agency actions for example. It also in no way prevents Congress from carving out whatever exceptions it wants, in fact that's how civil lawsuits against the government in general happen, Congress passes laws saying "people may sue the government for this." It'll actually be most interesting to see how this might ultimately affect other entities that have been using it, such as State Universities. This ruling didn't specifically address that, as usual courts like to stay specific to the case. But in their final paragraph CAFC clearly acknowledged the parallels with other cases, and it's hard to see how the same logic of this ruling wouldn't apply to any other such entity too.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It'll actually be most interesting to see how this might ultimately affect other entities that have been using it, such as State Universities. It's hard to say, as State sovereign immunity is a Constitutional guarantee (11th Amendment) and thus in principle less subject to Congressional whim than the sovereignty of any other entity, when it comes to application of US law by US courts.

Spooky23 8y ago

Many people do. Native American nations are magnets for scam artists and various criminals. They are immune from state prosecution, so if they operate at a level below whatever the federal authorities care about, it’s lower risk.

protomyth 8y ago
> Many people do. Native American nations are magnets for scam artists and various criminals. Wanna back that one up with some statistics? > They are immune from state prosecution, so if they operate at a level below whatever the federal authorities care about, it’s lower risk. Well, not quite. It really depends on what you are talking about. Besides, NA preying on NA is often ignored, but don't screw with the non-NA because then you get the Feds and State cooperating.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Google “smuggling Native American reservation site:nytimes.com” for a quick intro. Smuggling, drug trafficking, and other things are common problems. It’s vicious and tragic cycle often driven by poverty and neglect. Many of these root issues are compounded by awful healthcare and other policies.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    That isn't a reservation exclusive problem. For example, since the introduction of meth, you'll see a lot of problems everywhere in rural areas (beats blowing up an apartment building). Plus smuggling has always been a rural problem. Its just a lot more direct for the feds to intervene on a reservation. It kills me to think people want US government healthcare after seeing what the government provides on reservations. I guess they figure since they would be serving "white folks" then it would be better. That also leaves a bad taste in my mouth (which had 3 operations because of a botched root canal).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

Sangermaine 8y ago

This is quite a complex question, but the basic answer is that under US law native tribes are "domestic dependent nations". This means that they possess sovereignty as any separate nation would (which flows from Constitutional recognition of their pre-existing status), but it is a limited sort of sovereignty. Congress can limit that sovereignty through legislation and the federal government can make treaties with them. However, unless a treaty or federal statute removes a power, the tribe is assumed to possess it. In practical terms, addressing your question, if tribes keep trying to sell their sovereignty like this Congress can pass a law removing their sovereign immunity with respect to patents. And, in fact, moves have already started in that direction: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-allergan-patents-congress/senatormccaskill-drafts-bill-in-response-to-allergan-patent-maneuver-idUSKBN1CA2D0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-allergan-patents-congress... The tribes would probably be wise to knock this behavior off as it's almost certainly going to result in pieces of their sovereignty being carved away, because everyone seems to agree that this sort of scheme is an absurd abuse.

ttctciyf 8y ago

This idea was one of the strands of the biggest, hugest conspiracy theory of the 90's variously known as the Inslaw scandal, The Octopus, etc., which pulled into itself events surrounding a murder involving an obscure (23 member, iirc) group of Native Americans, the Cabazon: > Some believe Alvarez had discovered money-skimming by outsiders helping the tiny Cabazon Band of Mission Indians manage its fledgling casino. Others suspect, however, that he had stumbled onto plans for a top-secret weapons deal on reservation land. > Witnesses and court documents diverge considerably, however, on whether a secret partnership between the Cabazon tribe and the private security firm Wackenhut Corp. was a deal to provide security services, build a munitions arsenal or sell weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras, a U.S.-backed rebel group. [1] Trouble is, as far as your question goes, various government entities including the Justice Dept. and the CIA, etc. were the ones taking advantage of the territorial immunity of the tribe concerned (in various of the conspiracy scenarios, that is, which I in no way endorse, though I still read up on it when possible) If you're interested, for an overview of the wider ramifications, [2] & [3] are not-bad entry points. 1: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-murder-case-dropped-in-1981-ca-tribal-slaying-2010jul01-story.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-murder-case-dropped... 2: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/16/FBI-promis-part-1/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/16/FBI-promi... 3: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/mar/15/danny-casolaro-primer/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/mar/15/danny-cas...

arminiusreturns 8y ago
Nice to see others still think of Danny Casalaro. PROMIS should be a huge deal here, he'll, Bill Hamilton used to frequent Schneider blog and even claim that back then the NSA was backdooring low level chip manufacturers, among many other interesting claims. That whole thing is still super relevant.
smnrchrds 8y ago
> Trouble is, as far as your question goes, various government entities including the Justice Dept. and the CIA, etc. were the ones taking advantage of the territorial immunity of the tribe concerned. I just had the scary thought of the US setting up Guantanamo-like prisons on reservations. If it was legally possible, they probably would have done it already.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

I expect will see more of it. Companies, especially public ones, may be regarded as sociopaths of greed. Any and all actions are divided from any morality unless the public acts back with government action. So any act that is a technicality in order to gain more wealth will be done. We've already seen contracts widely used as a way to dissolve the sovereignty of US states and bypass their laws. Further proxying through native american tribes is an easy leap to try to further subvert any morals or justice encoded by the public in law.

gamblor956 8y ago
We'll see less of it. The point of the court ruling was to prevent tribes from being used as legal proxies. If a company wants to transfer legal rights to a tribe, it means they're also going to need to transfer actual independent ownership interests as well. We've already seen contracts widely used as a way to dissolve the sovereignty of US states and bypass their laws. Contracts are enforced at the state level (not the federal level), so I'd like to know what cases you're referring to here?