Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRis
10
11
12
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
v.
IIPAY NATION OF SANTA
YSABEL, also known as SANTA
YSABEL BAND OF DIEGUENO
MISSION INDIANS, a federallYrecognized Indian Trib~~ANTA
YSABEL INTERACT! v J!i, a tribal
economic deveiQP!Ilent entity, SANTA
YSABEL GAMING GOMMISSION,
DAVID CHELETTE, DAVID
VIALPANDO ANTHONY
BUCARO, MICHELLE MAXCY,
VIRGIL PEREZ, and BRANDlE
TAYLOR,
23
Defendants.
24
---1-5-- ---------------------26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of Application for a Temporary Restraining Order
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
FACTS ~2
ARGUMENT '!'4
The Court Has Original Jurisdiction Over the State's Action .............. 5
I.
The Tribe Does Not Have Sovereign Immunity From This
II.
Action ..................................................................................................... 6
IGRA Allows Gaming Only On Indian Lands; the Tribe's
III.
Internet Gambling Ofiindian Lands is Contrary To IGRA .................. 7
IV. The Tribe's Internet Gambling Occurs Both Where The Bettor is
Located and Where the Wager is Received ........................................ 11
v. The Tribe's Internet Gambling is a Facsimile of Bingo and Thus
is Class III Gaming .............................................................................. 14
VI. A Temporary Restraining Order is Appropriate in This Case ............ 15
A.
Because the evidence shows that the Tribe's Internet
gambling_ br~aches the compact and vio!ates the UIGEA,
tbe State Is hkely to succeea on the ments .............................. .16
B.
Because the Tribe's Internet gambling offends the State's
2ublic policies and potentially has far-reaching impact,
the State is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of relief ...................................................................................... 17
C.
The balance of the equities tips in the State's favor ................ .19
D.
An injunction is in the public interest ....................................... 19
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 20
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
CASES
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. i
2
3
4
6
7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
People v. Shira
62 Cal.App.3d442 (1976) .................................................................................. 17
Reichert v. General Ins. Co. ofAmerica
68 Cal.2d 822 (1968) .......................................................................................... 16
State ex rei. Nixon v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe
164 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 1999) .. ,..; ......................................................... 10, 11, 13
Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache
54 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 15
United States v. Lombardo
639 F.Supp.2d 1271 (D. Utah 2007) ................................................................... 14
United States v. Lyons
740 F.3d 702 (1st Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
111
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2
3
STATUTES
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
TABLEOF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
STATUTES (CONT'D)
17
18
19
20
21
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
22
23
24
25
26
OTHER AUTHORITIES
27
http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-regulation/260 19-california-tribelaunches-real-money-bingo-poker-coming/......................................................... .4
28
http://www.iipaynation-nsn.com/gaming.html. ........................................................ .4
v
2
3
4
5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
http://www .online-casinos.com/news/13 007 -tribal-interests-californiaintroduce-online-gambling ............. ....................... ;............................................. 19
Senate Report No. 100-446 (Aug. 3, 1988) ............................................................... 8
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
. 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vi
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
INTRODUCTION
1
2
defendant Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, also known as Santa Ysabel Band of
residents. The Tribe's Internet gambling platform allows any Californian over the
age of eighteen to gamble with the Tribe from anywhere that he or she can browse
10
11
12
13
class III gaming compact (Compact) between the Tribe and the State, do not
14
comply with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701-2721,
15
16
17
18
State seeks a temporary restraining order enjoining the Tribe and the other
. 19
defendants from offering Internet gambling to residents of, and visitors to,
20
California and accepting payments that violate the UIGEA. 2 Such an order is
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
necessary to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and good order in the State.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The facts are not in serious dispute. 3 The Tribe and the State entered into the
Compact under which the Tribe agreed to conduct gambling in accordance with
law. The Tribe now is offering Internet gambling to California residents ages
eighteen and older. Before the Tribe began to offer Internet gambling, the State
sought, but the Tribe refused, to meet and confer in accordance with the Compact.
(Dhillon Dec., 2-3, ~~ 6 & 7.)
On September 8, 2003, the Tribe and State entered into the Compact, which is.
Exhibit 1 to the complaint. (Dhillon Dec., 2, ~ 3.) The Compact requires that the
Tribe operate its gaming activities legally. Specifically, the Compact provides that
the Tribe may combine and operate in its gamirig facility "any kinds of gaming
permitted under law, except to the extent limited under IGRA .... " (Compact, 8,
4.2 (emphasis added).) The Compact further provides that a tribal gaming agencyhere, the Santa Ysabel Gaming Commission4 - will conduct on-site gaming
regulation and control "in order to enforce the terms of this ... Compact [and]
IGRA." (Compact, 22, 7.1.) That commission is to ensure enforcement of all
relevant laws and prevent illegal activity. (Compact, 25, 8.1.1, 8.1.4.)
The Tribe agreed not to engage in class III gaming that is not expressly
authorized in the Compact. (Compact, 7, 3.0.) Under Compact section 4.1, the
Tribe is authorized and permitted to operate (a) gaming devices- i.e., slot
machines, (b) banking and percentage card games, and (c) "any devices or games
that are authorized under state law to the California State Lottery,provided that the
24
The facts are set forth in the Declaration of Joginder Dhillon and .the
Declaration of Micah Scott (Scott Dec.), both of whicli are filed concurrently with
the State's motion for a temporary restraining order.
3
25
26
27
28
2
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
[Tribe] will not offer such games through use of the Internet unless others in the
state are permitted to do so under state and federal law." (Compact, 8, 4.l(c)
(emphasis added).) The Tribe is not to permit persons under the age of twenty-one
years to be present in any room or area in which class III gaming activities are
Tribe began to offer Internet gambling in the form of a facsimile of bingo. (Scott
Dec., 2, ,-r 3.) According to the press release issued on the same day, the Tribe
10
Dec., Exh. A.) Also according to that press release, by using any web browser on
11
any computer, mobile device, or tablet, a California resident can purchase bingo
12
13
14
15
described in the Declaration of Micah Scott and consistent with the press release,
16
17
irrespective of their location. Bettors need not travel to the Tribe's Indian lands to .
18
gamble. (Scott Dec., 3, ,-r 7.) Bettors use the Internet and log into the Tribe's bingo
19
website. (Id. at 2-3, ,-r 5.) They place bets by withdrawing money from accounts
20
that they have opened with the Tribe. (!d.) Bettors may fund their accounts by
21
credit card or other electronic funds transfer. (!d. at 2, ,-r 4.) After the bet is placed,
22
the game system plays the game including covering a facsimile bingo card and
23
determining the winner. (!d. at 3, ,-r 6.) The bettor's participation is limited to
24
electing the amountto bet and how many cards to play in any game. (!d.; see also
25
5 Under IGRA, "Indian lands" include lands within the limits of an Indian
reservation, 25 U.S.C. 2703(4)(A), and "any lands title to which is either held in
trust by .the 1Jnited ~ta~e~ for the 'J:>enefit of ~y .Indian tribe individual or. held by
any ln(han tnbe or mdtvtdual subJect to restnctwn by the Umted States al?amst
alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power, id.
2703(4)(B).
.
26
27
28
o:
3
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
Dhillon Dec., 2, ~ 4 & Exh. A ("At no time is live bingo game action performed by
the user.").)
Except under certain circumstances, the Compact provides for a meet and
confer process when disputes arise under it. The requirement is "without prejudice
to the right of either party to seek injunctive relief against the other when
July 2014, information appeared in the gaming press and gambling blogs that the
Tribe intended to "launch real money online poker" in California within a short
t!me. 6 On July 14, 2014, the State sent a letter requesting that the parties meet and
10
11
breached the Compact. (Dhillon Dec., 2-3, ~ 6, Exh. B.) That letter also referred to
12
Internet bingo. (Id.) The Tribe rejected the State's request to meet and confer.
13
14
15
ARGUMENT
The Tribe's Internet gambling breaches the Compact, violates IGRA, and can
16
be enjoined under both the Compact and the UIGEA. The Tribe's gambling is legal
17
only if conducted entirely on Indian lands. Its class III gaming is legal only if
18
conducted on the Tribe's Indian lands in compliance with the Compact. Its Internet
19
gambling is not being conducted only on the Tribe's Indian lands. Instead, bettors
20
located off the Tribe's Indian lands can participate in its Internet gambling. Its
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Tribe's website reports that it has established defendant Santa Ysabel
Interactive and launched an !-gaming poker website. (http://www.iipaynationnsn.com/gaming.html.) Gaming blogs re_port that real money online poker under
PrivateTable.com remains part of the Trioe's plans. (See, e.g.,
http://pokerfuse.com/newsllaw-and-regulatiori/260 19-california-tribe-launches-realmoney-bingo-poker-coming/.)
6
I.
The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331, IGRA, and
2
3
the UIGEA. The State's complaint invokes the Court's jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1331 because the State's claim arises under federal statutes and the federal
common law. This Court has jurisdiction under section 1331 to enforce a compact.
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.
1997) (Cabazon II), cert. denied sub nom. Wilson v. Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians, 524 U.S. 926 (1998). In Cabazon II, the State asserted that the court
lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was purely contractual. Id. at 1055. In
10
11
12
13
14
15
Id. at 1056. Here, the same analysis applies. The Tribe's obligation to the State
16
arises from the Compact, which is a creation of federal law and entered into
17
18
19
because this action is initiated by the State to enjoin conduct related to the Tribe's
20
class III gaming activity that violates the Compact. 7 In Cabazon II, the Ninth
21
Circuit also addressed jurisdiction under IGRA. The court concluded that "IGRA
22
23
and the agreements contained therein." Cabazon II, 124 F.3d at 1056. This is
24
25
26
27
28
"
5
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
exactly what the State seeks to do in this case- i.e., enforce the Tribe's public
3
4
Here, the Tribe may assert that the restricted transactions are initiated, received, or
otherwise made on Indian lands. (See Dhillon Dec., Exh. A.) That assertion,
however, does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Under the UIGEA, the State
then may pursue remedies provided in the Compact with respect to restricted
10
11
12
II.
13
THE TRIBE DOES NOT HAVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM TillS ACTION
The Tribe does not enjoyo sovereign immunity with respect to the claims for
14
relief made in the State's complaint because Compact section 9.4 provides for a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
(Compact, 30-31, 9.4.) Clearly, this action meets those criteria.to waive
sovereign immunity. 9
of tribal sovereign immunity. That issue was central in the Supreme Court's recent
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2014 (2014), decision. There,
the Supreme Court determined that the section's sovereign immunity waiver did not
apply when class III gaming was not conducted on Indian lands. The Court
2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). !d. at 2032. Here, the Tribe publicly asserts that the gaming
10
activity 10 occurs on its Indian lands. Moreover, the complaint alleges that some
11
equipment integral to the Tribe's Internet gambling is located on the Tribe's Indian
12
lands. (Complaint, 9, ,-r 34.) Therefore, IGRA's sovereign immunity waiver also
13
applies.
14
15
16
17
regulatory framework for tribal gaming intended to balance state, federal, and tribal
18
interests. Amador County v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Under
19
IGRA, a tribe may conduct gaming only on Indian lands. Neighbors of Casino San
20
Pablo v. Salazar, 773 F.Supp.2d 141, 143 (D.D.C. 2011). "Indian lands" is a
21
defined term and means, among other things, lands within the limits of a
22
reservation and lands held in trust by the United States for a tribe. 25 U.S.C.
23
2703(4).
24
This waiver also applies to the State's claim under the UIGEA, which
looks to the enforcement authorities under an IGRA tribal-state compact. See 31
U.S.C. 5365(b)(3)(A)(ii).
9
25
26
27
28
7
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
throughout the act. First, in IGRA's findings section, Congress found that
U.S.C. 2701(1), existing federal law did not provide clarity for the "conduct of
gaming on Indian lands," id. 2701(3), and tribes have the exclusive right to
and federal standards for "gaming on Indian lands." 25 U.S.C. 2702(3). Third,
Congress generally prohibited gaming on tribal trust lands acquired after October
10
17, 1988. See 25 U.S.C. 2719. Finally and importantly, all ofthe provisions
11
relating to the licensing and regulation under IGRA apply only to gaming on Indian
12
lands. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. 2710(a)(1) (class I gaming), (b)(1) (class II gaming),
13
.14
Senate Report No. 100-446 (Aug. 3, 1988) (Senate Report) supports the
15
conclusion that IGRA and the gaming that it allows are limited to Indian lands. The
16
17
and the Federal Government of class II gaming on Indian lands and a system for
18
compacts between tribes and States for regulation of class III gaming." Id. at 1.
19
The act was the "outgrowth of several years of discussions and negotiations
20
between gaming tribes, States, the gaming industry, the administration, and the
21
22
23
Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)(Cabazon 1), as using a balancing test between
24
federal, state, and tribal interests to find "that tribes ... have a right to conduct
25
26
1. The report observed, "in the final analysis, it is the responsibility of Congress,
27
consistent with its plenary power over Indian affairs, to balance competing policy
28
8
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
Because IGRA and the Senate Report are clear that IGRA gaming is limited to
Indian lands, the NIGC concluded that non-electronic bingo played through human
proxies offered to patrons over the Internet "is not authorized under IGRA." (Letter
Peebles & Crowell, re: Lac Vieux Desert Internet Bingo Operation (Oct. 26,
2000));I 1 see Lac Vieux Desert Band ofLake Superior Chippewa Indians v.
10
Moreover, the NIGC consistently has concluded that tribes making Internet
11
gambling available to persons not located on Indian lands violate IGRA. (See, e.g.,
12
Letter from Montie Deer, Chairman, NIGC, to Ernest L. Stensgar, Chairman, Coeur
13
d' Alene Tribe, re: National Indian Lottery (Jun. 22, 1999); letter from Penny
14
Coleman, Deputy General Counsel, NIGC, to Terry Barnes, Bingo Networks, re: U-
15
PIK-EM Bingo (Jun. 9, 2000); letter from Kevin Washburn, General Counsel,
16
NIGC, to Joseph Speck, Nic-A-Bob Productions, re: WIN Sports Betting Game
17
(Mar. 13, 200_1); see also letter from Richard Schiff, Senior Attorney, NIGC, to
18
Don Abney, Principal Chief, Sac and Fox Nation, re: Tele-Bingo (Jun. 21, 1999)
19
(bingo played by telephone off-Indian lands violates IGRA).) In its only known
20
entry into tribal Internet gaming, the United States Department of Justice shared the
21
NIGC's opinion. See Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae, Coeur d'Alene
22
Tribe v. AT&T Corp., 1999 WL 33622333, Case No. 99-35088 (9th Cir. 1999).
23
The State is not aware of any published court decision that expressly
24
authorizes tribal gaming under IGRA off of Indian lands. Rather, the decisions lead
25
to the conclusion- consistent with IGRA's provisions and the Senate Report- that
26
27
28
9
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
Tribe, 45 F. Supp. 2d 995 (D. Idaho 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 295 F.3d 899
(9th Cir. 2001 ), the district court found that, to the extent the tribe's planned
National Indian Lottery (NIL) occurred outside the limits of the reservation, IGRA
did not preempt state gambling laws. 12 Based upon that finding, the court
concluded that notices given by states under the federal Wire Act precluded
AT&T's providing toll-free telephone services for the NIL to those states. !d. at
999-1000. The court observed that under the plain language of IGRA, the gaming
activities constituting the NIL had to occur on lands within the limits of the tribe's
reservation to be unregulated. !d. at 1001. The court found that placing a wager
10
was a gaming activity within the meaning of IGRA. !d. ("But for the act of placing
11
the 'lottery wager,' the player could not participate in, and the Tribe could not
12
'13
In State ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 164 F .3d 1102 (8th Cir. 1999),
14
the Eighth Circuit addressed Missouri's challenge to the NIL. The state filed
15
actions in state court against the tribe and its contractor to enjoin conducting the
16
NIL with Missouri residents. Defendants removed both cases, which the federal
17
district courts subsequently dismissed. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
18
The court pointed out that "IGRA established a comprehensive regulatory regime
19
for tribal gaming activities on Indian lands . ... Once a tribe leaves its own lands
20
and conducts gambling activities on state lands, nothing in the IGRA suggests that
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
Congress intended to preempt the State's historic right to regulate this controversial
concluded that if the NIL was being conducted on Missouri lands, IGRA did not
preempt the state law claims or even provide a defense thereto. !d. at 1109. 14
In sum, the Tribe's Internet gambling does not fall within the purview of
IGRA because some of the gaming activity necessarily takes place outside of the
Tribe's Indian lands. Thus, IGRA does not give the Tribe the power to engage in,
or license and regulate, the Internet gambling. Instead, the State has the power to
10
11
12
Although the Tribe may argue that its Internet gambling offerings are lawful
13
because servers or some other equipment is located on its Indian lands, the UIGEA
14
confirms Congress's recognition that Internet gambling may cross state and
15
national borders:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
including the movement of funds. Under the UIGEA, bet or wager means -staking
23
or risking something of value upon the outcome of a game, subject to chance, upon
24
25
certain outcome. 31 U.S.C. 5362( 1)(A). Bet or wager includes the purchase of a
26
27
14 Even though the cases were remanded for a determination of whether the
NIL was being conducted on Missouri lands, no subsequent history is reported.
28
11
or customer in, to; or from an account with a business of betting or wagering, id.
5362(1 )(D).
The UIGEA looks to the laws of the places both where the bet or wager are
placed and received. Unlawful Internet gambling is defined as "to place, receive, or
otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use,
at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any
applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or
10
(emphasis added); see Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Assn. Inc. v.
11
Attorney General, 580 F.3d 113, 117 (3d Cir. 2009) (Interactive) (npthing in the
12
UIGEA suggests that Congress meant anything other than the physical location of a
13
14 , of the Internet and may be used to avoid the UIGEA; therefore, it included the
15
provision that "intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the
16
17
18
Further showing Congress' view that gambling occurs both where the bet or
19
wager is placed and received, the UIGEA excludes from unlawful Internet
20
21
22
23
gambling certain transactions on-Indian lands. See 31 U.S.C. 5362(1 O)(C). For a
24
single tribe to avoid unlawful Internet gambling, it must meet certain requirements,
25
26
'
a.
The bet or wager must be initiated and received exclusively "within the
27
28
12
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
b.
The method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received must be
the NIGC and, if class III gaming, the applicable tribal-state gaming
c.
The applicable tribal ordinance or compact must include age and location
5362(10)(C)(iii).
10
11
unlawful Internet gambling, including proceeds from credit cards, electronic fund
12
transfers, and checks. See 31 U.S.C. 5363; United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702,
13
729 (1st Cir. 2014). For determining whether the gambling is unlawful, the test is
14
whether it is illegal at the location in which the gambling business is located or the
15
location from which the individual initiated the bet or wager. Interactive, 580 F.3d
16
at 116. The Third Circuit succinctly summarized the locational aspects of UIGEA:
17
18
financial instruments in connection with a bet that is illegal under any Federal or
19
State law applicable in the jurisdiction in which the bet is initiated or received." !d.
20
at 117.
21
The UIGEA's locational focus is consistent with other authorities that examine
22
betting as occurring in two places- i.e., where the bettor is located and where the
23
wager is received. For example, both the district court in AT&T Corporation v.
24
Coeur d'Alene and the Eighth Circuit in State ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe
25
26
27
28
harbor for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers
13
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
from a state or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is
legal into a state or foreign country in which such betting is legal. 18 U.S.C.
1084(b). Thus, the Wire Act looks to the parties' locations. See, e.g., Martin v.
In sum, the Tribe's Internet gambling occurs off the Tribe's Indian lands when
bettors- i.e., Internet users- are not physically on the Tribe's Indian lands.
v.
IGRA divides tribal gaming into three classifications: class I, which involves
10
traditional forms of tribal gaming and social games solely for minimal prizes; class
11
II, which is bingo meeting certain criteria and some card games; and class III,
12
which is all fomis of gaming that are not class I or class II. 25 U.S.C. 2703(6),
13
(7), (8). Class III gaming includes banking card games, electronic facsimiles of any
14
15
16
electronic ... format that replicates a game of chance by incorporating all of the
17
characteristics of the game, except when, for bingo ... , the electronic ... format
18
19
other rather than with or against a machine." 25 C.P.R. 502.8. In discussing what
20
an electronic facsimile is, the NIGC writes: "If, however, a particular aid ...
21
22
23
Federal courts are divided as to whether the Wire Act reaches Internet
wagers and bets that do not involve sporting contests. Compare In re Mastercard
Int'l Inc., Internet Gambling Litig., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, 480~81(E.D. La. 2001),
aff'db313 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002) (sportin~vents only), with Onited States v.
om ardo, 639 F. Su_p_p: 2d 1271, 1279~82 tU. Utah 2907) (all forms ofbetting). In
December 2011, the Uiuted States Department of Justice released a memorandum
that concluded that the Wire Act's prollibitions relate solely to sports-related
gambling activities. (Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General,
Criminaf Division (Sept. 20, 2011 ). )
15
24
25
26
27
28
14
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
classification of card games played with technological aids, 8 (Dec. 17, 2009)
An electronic facsimile of bingo is a class III game. Here, the evidence shows
that players, who are located off the Tribe's Indian lands, do nothing other than
place a bet. (Scott Dec., 3, ~~ 6, 7.) The Tribe's electronic system does everything
else. If the electronic system is removed, the game disappears. Therefore, the
The Tribe's electronic system selects the numbers, purportedly marks the
10
cards, and determines the winner. (Scott Dec., 3, ~ 6.) In this way, the Tribe's
11
Internet gambling is no different from the electronic pull-tab dispenser that the
12
13
v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 1994) (Sycuan). The pull-tab dispenser there, like
14
the Tribe's Internet game here, produced only an electronic reproduction of a paper
15
ticket on a computer screen. Unlike the Tribe's Internet game here in which every
16
part of the game is played on its electronic system, the player in Sycuan actually did
17
something to reveal numbers. !d. at 541. The court found, as the Court should
18
here, that the pull-tab machine was a class III facsimile because- it was a self-
19
contained computer game played electronically. ld. at 542. Here, like the pull-tab
20
game in Sycuan, the game is an exact and detailed copy of a bingo game played
21
electronically. See id; see also Cabazon Band ofMission Indians v. National
22
Indian Gaming Comm 'n, 14 F.3d 633, 636-37 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(pull-tab game in
23
which multiple players played against each other was class III electronic facsimile);
24
25
26
The requirements for a temporary restraining order are the same as those for a
27
28
15
'
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, the evidence
A.
The State's first claim for reliefis breach of the Compact. A compact is a
contract, and is governed by general federal contract law principles. Cachil Dehe
10
Control Comm'n, 618 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2010). In determining federal
11
contract law, courts rely upon both "California contract law and Ninth Circuit
12
decisions interpreting California" contract law. Id. The elements for a breach of
13
14
15
16
In this case, the Tribe's breach of the Compact is clear. The Tribe agreed not
17
to engage in class III gaming that is not expressly authorized in the Compact.
18
(Compact, 7, 3.0.) The only Internet gambling expressly allowed by the Compact
19
is "devices and games that are authorized ... to the California State Lottery" that
20
others in the State are permitted to offer through the Internet under state and federal
21
22
Lottery game through the Internet. (Dhillon Dec., 3, ,-r 8.) Consequently, the
23
Tribe's offering its class III facsimile of bingo over the Internet breaches its duties
24
under the Compact. The State is likely to succeed on its first claim for relief on the
25
merits.
26
The State's second claim for relief is under the UIGEA. Under the facts here,
27
the Tribe is engaging in unlawful Internet gambling. The betting, which is initiated
28
in California off of Indian lands, is illegal under State law. California statutes make
16
The State of California's MemoraiJ.dum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
aiding or assisting those acts, crimes. Cal. Penal Code 320, 321, 322. The
prize determined by chance for consideration. See Cal. Penal Code 319; see also
place with devices for the purpose of recording any bets or wagers, receiving
any bets or wagers. The Tribe's Internet gambling system violates California Penal
10
11
12
the time and place where the game is being conducted, Cal. Penal Code 326.5(m),
13
and prohibits using electronic or video displays in connection with bingo, id.
14
326.5(o). The Tribe's Internet gambling violates these California Penal Code
15
16
Through its unlawful Internet gambling, the Tribe is engaged in the business
17
18
bet or wager or purchase an opportunity to win a lottery and (2) which includes
19
20
with the Tribe. See 31 U.S.C. 5362(1), (2). The Tribe knowingly accepts credit
21
and other transfers in connection with the unlawful Internet gambling. 31 U.S.C.
22
5363. The State is likely to succeed on its second claim for relief on the merits.
23
B.
24
25
26
The State has no adequate remedy at law. Under the Compact, IGRA, and the
27
UIGEA, it can seek only injunctive relief. Moreover, even if damages were
28
recoverable, they could not adequately compensate the State for the harm done to
.
17
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
its interests by illegal gambling and the possibility of unregulated Internet gambling
The State has an interest in ensuring compliance with the Compact. (Dhillon
Dec., 3, ,-r 9.) Additionally, the State's public policy against unlawful lotteries is at
stake. (!d.) That public policy is enunciated in the California Constitution's broad
prohibition of lotteries, Cal. Const. art. IV, 19(a), as well as the California Penal
Code. The State's public policy regarding tribal gaming alsois set forth in the
tribal-state gaming compacts for the operation of slot machines and for the conduct
10
of lottery games and banking and percentage card games. Cal. Const. art. IV,
11
19(f). The Compact establishes the perimeters of the Tribe's class III gaming.
12
Otherwise, class III gaming is unlawful in California. See Cal. Const. art. IV,
13
19(e); Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Int'l v. Davis, 21 Cal. 4th 585
14
(1999). The State's interest in protecting its public policy will be harmed
15
irreparably without the requested order. (See Dhillon Dec., 3, ,-r 9.)
16
17
eighteen and older. It allows unlawful gambling anywhere these residents are-
18
albeit at school, work, or home. Even though it targets Californians who are not on
19
its Indian lands, the Tribe seeks to preclude the State from an opportunity to
20
21
Unregulated gambling enterprises are inimical to the public health, safety, welfare,
22
and good order. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 19801 (d). The State thus will suffer
23
24
Moreover, the Tribe's Internet gambling presents issues that potentially affect
25
millions of Californians and, possibly, the United States' gambling policies. The
26
gambling press reports the following with attribution to defendant Santa Y sahel
27
Interactive:
28
18
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
2
3
4
7
8
online-gambling (emphasis added).) The absence of injunctive relief not oply will
10
encourage the Tribe to offer additional Internet gambling, but also may encourage
11
other tribes to begin online gambling in California and elsewhere. (See Dhillon
12
Dec., 3, ~ 9.)
13
C.
14
The equities clearly favor the State and its interests in ensuring compliance
15
with Compact and protecting the public health, safety, welfare, and good order.
16
The Tribe is reaching out to Californians irrespective of whether they are on its
17
Indian lands. IGRA does not allow this. The UIGEA does not allow this. The
18
19
The Tribe should not be allowed to benefit by breaching the Compact and
20
violating State and federal law at the expense of Californians and the State's public
21
policy. Additionally, the State has acted expediently once the Tribe launched its
22
Internet gambling. 16 Insum, the balance of the equities tips in the State's favor.
23
D.
24
The State's interest is the public interest. Here, the public interest is to enforce
25
the Compact, to prevent the Tribe from engaging in unlawful class III gaming that
26
The State attempted to meet and confer when the Tribe first announced its
intentions in July 2014. The Tribe, however, refused to participate in a meet and
confer. (See Dhillon Dec., 2-3, ~~ 6 & 7.)
16
27
28
19
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
targets the State's residents, to prevent violations of state and federal law, and to
protect the State's constitutionally stated public policy with respect to lotteries,
gambling, and tribal gaming. For these reasons, an injunction here is in the public
interest.
5
6
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the State respectfully requests that the Court enter a
temporary restraining order enjoining the Tribe and the other defendants from
offering Internet gambling to residents of, and visitors to, California and from
10
11
Respectfully Submitted,
12
KAMALA D. HARRIS
13
'14
15
/s/WILLIAMP. TORNGREN
16
17
18
WILLIAM P. TORNGREN
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California
SA2014119021
11594254.doc
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
The State of California's Memorandum in Support
of Temporary Restraining Order
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
. 8
10
11
12
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
14
15
16
v.
22
23
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
TO MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Date: December 4, 2014
Time: 2:00p.m.
Courtroom: 3B
Ju9ge: Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia
Tnal Date:
Action Filed: November 18, 2014
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from Kevin Washburn, General Counsel, NIGC,
to Robert Rossette, Monteau, Peebles & Crowell,
re: Lac Vieux Desert Internet Bingo
Operation (Oct. 26, 2000) ............................... AOl
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
II
NATIONAL
. INDIAN
GAMING
.__..,,
COMMISSION
OCT 2 6 2000
as
Indian lands, defined by lGRA, are lands within the limits of any lndian reservation.
and any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
any Indian tribe o:t individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction
by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises
governmental power. See 25 U.S.C. 2703(4).
Obviou!llly, the concept in u~ing the internet is to draw players from a wide area. Internet
Bingo apparently ~eeks to draw any player who can log on to the internet site from any
location and who is willing to pay the fee. The game itself does not depend on the player
TEL: 202-6327003
FAX: 20H327066
Appendix A -- A02
~~
.....""'
Based on our conclusion that theiGRA does not authorize Internet Bingo, we need not
address whether Internet Bingo is a class n teclmological aid.under the JGRA, as put .
foith in your proposal. We understand LVD's argument that the internet is being used in
this instance only to extend the play of bingo, Assuming arguendo, that the internet
could appropriately be characterized in this case as a technologic~ aid to the play 9f
bingo, the principle of extending play has limits. In essence, we are confident that
Congress did not intend to allow the play of.bingo to be extended outside Indian lands.
In summary, a tn'bal gaming operatiortis not authorized to operate under IGRA if all or
part of the gaming occurs at locations that do not fall within the definition of"Indian
lands.'' Further, such action may violate other federal and state laws.
If you have any question regarding thi~ matter, please do not hesitate to contact Staff
Attorney Maria Getoffat (202) 6327003.
cc: Cbaries Gross, Assistant United States Attorney, Western District of Michigan
Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of
Justice, Criminal Division
Appendix A -- A03
Appendix A -- A04
. ...
,..
.'
l!f
,I
\..'
/,i,'.t:-IG
_.,~~COMMISSION
JUN 2 2 1999
....
Tribe's management contract and a subsequent amendment, impHcitly authorized the offreservation features of the NU.. lt is the view of the NIGC that the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act (IGRA) does not authorize off-reservation gaming and, moreover, that the NIGC did not
authorize such gaming when it approved the Tn'be's management contfaCt and amendment.
In a press release issued in March of 1995, less than two months after our approval of the
management contract, we stated:
It is the position of the NIGC that the tribal gaming actions of the NU. to the extent they
involve off reservation gaming are not authorized by IGRA. Further, such actions may be subject
to other federal or state laws.
Appendix A -- A05
Finally, we concur in the opinion of the United States as more fu11y articulated in its
.........,.,........_ aroicus curi11e brieffiled today in~the 9th Circuit.
Sincerely,
mte!dk
Montie R. Deer
Cba.imum
Appendix A -- A06
!I
NATIONAl
INDIAN
GAMING
COMMISSION
In response to questions posed by Mr. Richard Schiff in his letter of March 17, 2000,
your telefax of April4 provided a description of Internet U~PIK.-EM, and you provided
additional clarification to Ms. Sandra Ashton in a telephone conversation of April 17, 2000.
According to your description of the game, players would open an online account with the
gaming center by credit card or electronic check through the Internet. You stated that the gaming
center is located on ttiballand.
From home computers, players would purchase the desired number of cards and choose
eight numbers (between 1 and 75) in the "small picture .frame" designated pattern in the center of
each card. Each player would agree to elect a proxy player at the gaming center. When asked
during the April 17 telephone conversation about how many proxy players would be required,
you indicated that only one proxy might be necessary, as the cotpputer identifies the winner. The
proxy player would merely verizy the winner. At the 8:00P.M. game time, a mecha:nicai ball
blower would ~domly select numbers, lind players would daub their duplicate cards online at
home. Numbers would be drawn until there is a winner, with the winnings being larger if fewer
numbers are drawn before there is a winner. The computer would identify the first player whose
card matched the selected numbers. Wmnings could be used to support additional play or the
winner could request a draw that would be mailed the following day.
lB..: ~7003
FAX: 202-632-7066
The lORA does not authorize off-reservation gaming as contemplated in the game
described. The Chairman of the NIGC stated this position in the enclosed letter dated June 22,
1999, to the Cbainnan ofthesCoeur.d'Alene Tribe ofldaho. The United States asserted this
position in related HtigatioJCin the Court of Appeals for .the Ninth Circuit.' Please see the
enclosed brief of the United States as amicus curiae. In addition, U-PIK-BM bingo accessed via
the Internet may also run afoul of other laws that are outside the area ofNlGC' s expertise.
If you have any questions or concerns on this matter,please contact Sandra Ashton at
202-632-7003.
Sincerely,
-<?~
Penny J. Coleman
Deputy General Counsel
Enclosure
ccw/enc:
Appendix A -- A09
Appendix A -- A 10
.,
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Ac.t (lORA) governs gambling on Indian lands. The
IGRA identifies certain specific fonns of gambling as Class II, and therefore subject to
regulation by tribes and the NIGC. Those forms of gambling are as follows:
(i) The game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic,
computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith)(I)
(II)
NATIONAL HEAOQUI\RT~RS 1441l St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 1!02.632.700~ Fa~: 202.6n.7066 WWW.NIGC.GOV
REGIONAL OFFICE$
Penland, OR: Sacramento, CA: Phoeni~. AZ: S1. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK
Appendix A -- A 11
Joseph M. Speck
March 13,2001
Page2
designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated, are
drawn or electronically determined, and
(III)
(ii)
(II) . Are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and are
played in conformity with :tflose laws and .regulations (if any) of
the State regarding hours or .periods of operation of s1lch card
games or limitations on wagers or p<>t sizes in such card games.
25 U.S.C. 2703 {7)(A).
All other forms of gambling (except Class I gaming which consists of social games for
prizes of minimal value and gaming by individuals in connection wjth tribal ceremonies,
See 25 U.S.C. 2703(6) are considered Class lli games and may be lawfully played only
pursuant to a Tribal-State compact. 25 U.S.C. 2703(8) and 2710(d).
Because sports betting d<>es not fit into any of the specifically defined categories of Class
Moreover. specific fonnsof gaming, including sports bettingJ are .subject to compact only
if located in a state that pennits such gaming for any ,purpose by any personJ organization
or entity. 2S U.S.C. 2710(d)(I)(B). If sports betting is unlawful in a state, it is
unlawful for tribes in that state to engage in it. Sports betting is unlawful in most states,
including Ari~na and California. Statutes in both Arjzona and Califomia specifically
prohibit this form of gambling. See ARIZ. ~V. STAT. 13-3305(1989); CA. PENAL
CODE 337a(1978).
In addition to state statutes prohibiting sports betting, federal law makes it a crime to
Appendix A -- A12
Joseph M. Speck
March J3, 2001
Page 3
betting on that -sporting event is lawful. 18 U.S.C. 1084(2000). Those states that we
are aware sports betting is lawful are Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon. See DEL.
CODE ANN. tit. 28 1101(1953); OR. REV. STAT. 1462.020(1999); MONT. CODE
ANN. 23~5-405{1999); NEV. REV. STAT. 463.010(1999).
Furthermore, the lORA does not authorize off-reservation gaming as contemplated in
your submission. The use of the Internet, even though the computer server may be
located on Indian lands, would constitute off-reservation gaming to the. extent any of the
players were located off of Indian lands. The Chairmllll of the NIOC stated this position
in the enclosed letter dated June 22~ 1999, to the Chairman of the Coeur d' Alene.Tribe of
Idaho. Moreover, the United States asserted this position as amicus curiae in related
litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, A decision in that
case is pending. Finally, WIN accessed via the Internet may run afoul of other Jaws
outside the area ofNIGC's expertise.
Both because sports betting is unlawful in Arizona and Califorrria, and because the use of
the Internet for gambling purposes is not authorized by lORA, we conclude that tribes in
Arizona and California may not lawfully operate WIN. Furthermore, tribes in any state
where sports betting is illegal may not operate W1N.
If you have any questions please contact Staff Attorney Maria Getoff at (202) 632-7003.
incerely yours,
){L--
evin . 'Yfsh~um
. ene Counsel
Enclosure
Appendix A -- A 13
...
..
-~.~NATIONAL
~~ ~: INDIAN
.._,. j8GAMING
,,
I
.~
....
;.;
l3'i COMMISSION
JJN 2 I 1900
.......,.
Because we were unfamiliar with the game being offered under the Lease, we also
reviewed Ute game to determine whether its play is lawful under IGRA. We have determined:
that Tele-Bingo is not being run as a tribal gaming operation under IGRA; that, in any event, it is
a class m game which cannot be played lawfully on Indian land in Oklahoma; and that, therefore,
tht~ Nation should immediately close down the same.
.
Ambority to review the Lease and Indemnity
The authority of the NIGC to review and approve gaming related contracts is limited by
the IGRA to management contracts and collateral agreements to management contracts. 25
U.S. C. 2711. The authority of the Secretary of the Interior to approve such agreements under
25 U.S.C. 81 was transferred to the NIGC pursuant to t~e IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 27ll(h).
Management Contracts
The NIGC has defined the term "management contract" to mean "any contract,
subcontract, or collateral agreement between an Indian tribe and a contractor or between a
contractor and a subcontractor if such contract or agreement provides for the management of all
or part of a gaming operation." 25 C.F.R. 502.15. The NIGC has defined 1'collateral
agreement" to mean 1'any contract, whether or not in writing; that is related either directly or
indirectly, to a management contract, or to any rights, duties or obligations created between a
tribe (or any of its members, entities, organizations) and a management contractor or
subcontractor (or any person or entity related to a management contractor or subcontractor)." 25
C.P.R. 502.5.
TEL: 2026327003
FAX: 202-632o-7066
Appendix A -- A15
.;
Although it is not clear from the face of the lease, NIGC field investigators visiting the
site report that the Nation is not involved in the operati?n ofTelemark's game, "Tele-Bingo," It
appears that the game is wholly operated by Telemark on the Nation's land, and the Nation does
not participate materially in any aspect of the operation. Under this arrartgement, Tele-Bingo is
not tribal gaming, and therefore does not meet the fundamental requirement of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) that the Nation have the sole proprietary interest and responsibility for
the conduct of the game. Based upon this determination, it is not necessary to decide whether or
not the Lease and Indemnity constitute a management agreement. The question of whether
Teteroark is managing a tribal gaming operation would only arise ifTele-Bingo was in fact a tribal
gaming operation, but that is not the case. Stated otherwise, this operation does not meet even the
.basic requirement of being gaming by an Indian tribe under IGRA, and we carui~t therefore get to
the management issue. There is no legal basis for the conduct ofTele~Bingo on the Nation's land .
...,.
In addition I am infooned that the description of the game in the Lease, which involved
play using a 900 t~lepbone number to get payment, is incomplete and inaccurate. As currently
played the game apparently uses the Internet to provide the player with the bingo card (all players
use the same card), to solicit payment and to provide a PIN to the player. Utilizing the PIN, the
player then engages in "play" by phone. The play consists of telephoning a location on the
Nation's land and receiving, from the person on the other end, 20 randomly generated numbers.
Payouts are based upon achieving. a bingo with the fewest numbers, although a bonus is paid for
covering the top row with the first five numbers.
IGRA (25 U.S. C. 2703) defines class n gaming to mean:
1. The game of chance commonly known as bingo:
a. Which is played for prizes with cards bearing numbers or other designations
b. In which the holder of the card covers Stich numbers or designations when
objects, sirtiilarly numbered or designated, are drawn
c. In which the game is won by the first person covering a previously designated
arrangement on such card (s)
Tele~Bingo is far removed from the "game of chance commonly known as bingo." The
Tele~Bingo player is not .engaged in play of a game with other players, covering numbers as they
are caJied, and does not win by being "the first person covering a previously designated
arrangement." Rather, the Tele~Bingo player receives randomly generated numbers by telephone,
and wins by matching those numbers to a card which remains the same for all players in all games.
2
Appendix A -- A 16
.. '"'
..._,
..
Please be advised that the Nation should take all necessary steps to close- down this game,
without deJay. Operation of this non~trlbal game on the Nation's land is a violation ofiGRA.
Additionally, operation of a class ITI game on Indian land, without a compact, is a violation of
IGRA and constitutes a crime under 18 U.S. C. 1166.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (202) 632-7003.
Sincerely,
' .{
1/
~
.
/i, ,./vM-~~t-~tJ/
11
'.
Richard B. Schiff
Senior Attorney
'
. Appendix A -- A17
Memor~ndum
Appendix A A18
Memorandum
/'
From: Penny .r. Colenum, General Couns.~l (Acting) ?(ll~- li.Y ... .:~--~
Subj~c:;t: Classification of card ~mes played with tec:;lprQ"logic aids.
better conClusion.
There a:l'e three classes of gar.hing under lGRA. Class l. which is not at issue here,
means "sa.ciaLgames .solely for prizes ofmini:mal va-lue or tr~ditional :forms ofiodi:an.
gaming engaged in by individ~1als as part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonie11 of
celebrations." 25 U.S.C. 2703{6). ClttSs U is defined. in :rei evant part, as;
(i) Ulc game ofehance ao1nmonly lwown as bingo (whether or not
electronic, computet, or other technologic a:lds are used in connection
!herewith)
Appendix A -- A19
Page 2 of 1I
(I) which i/i'played for prizes. irtc'ludi'Qgtnon~taryplizes, with
played at 1111y location in the State, but only Jf sucb card games nre
played in confoimitywith those lawund J'eS.,Tltlations (if any) of
the $tate i'eg~rding hours or periods of o;i:>eraticm of s.\lCh card
grunes91' Hmitarions an wagers or. pot siz6!l in such card giunes.
(B) The t:erm "Class II gami;ng,. does not luclude
{i) any baukingcarcl games, h!.Chtding baccarat, chemin de fer1 . or
u.s.c. 2703(7).
Class mis a ca-tch~all categpry that includes ~all forms of gaming tha;t are not
Class l gaming or Class II gairdng.\' 25 u;s.c. 2703(8).
25
Appendix A -- A20
PageJ of II
25 C,F.R. 502~7(n). Theregulatlons also define el~ct.roiriafacshnile., in relevmrt part, as
"a game played in an e.lectrcmic (YI' electtomethanic:aJ.fornlilt that tep.licates lt game Of
chance by incorporating all of the characteristks ofthe.game ... .''25 CJ?.R. . 5:02.R.
Game and EquipUlJWl
As described in tllc20.04 opinion, DigiDenl i~ nn eleqtronic oard table the size a:nd
nrc shaJ'e of any commo:11. fe1t-cov~red table used .in ca.sinos fol games like Pili Gow
Poker or Let it Ride Pok.er. The dealer st~1ds in bisot' her c\lstomary p.lace, ~md there are
six player positionsi .eiroh witli a. vjdec~ scteet1 built in. In lieu of an ordil1ary dock of
Although this memo disagreos witb the 2004 opinion's ultimate resolution, l
ooncur:wjtb Hs analysis ~onchtdiitg that the DigiDeal table constitutes l\ technologic aid
rather than au eloottonic. qr electromechallicntfacsimlle.
rhG. Dl.giDeal table. salis'fies the first element of a technological ttid-tl1at it nssisls
the player o:r the playh1g of a gam~. Tho table assists play by displaying eacl1 player's
lumd, thus making il easier lo decide whether to conti1~ue or to fold. Tho table also
klcnti fies qualifYing hands, hands tl1at w~re. folded, and the amo1.u,1t of the pat won. thus
makhlg tile play o fihe .g~une simpler artd more accurate.
'11i~ ta:bJo also si.{tisfie~i the third element, that i1 ''is qperated in accordance with
applicable .Federal comnmnications Law." 25 C.F.R. S<l2.7(a)(3.). The table is 11ot linked
with other tables and, in communicating With the dealer's ~hoe, apparently meets FCC
PtJgo 4of 11
Jn Syc.utm Eand ofMissian Indian$ v. Rcmche, 54 F. 3d 535 (9'11 Cir. 1994), for
example, the Ninth Circuilrevlewed a v,iholly electronic pul1~1ab game ip which the
player bought and played. pull~tabs generated -by computer and displayed ort a video
ser~ wlthout prol;lucing a traditiona1 paperp\lll tab. The .cottrt conoltu:ied tbat 1his was
an exact, sclf..contalned copy o:fpap~rpnll-tab!!.lffid thus an electronic .r.acshnile. Wllile
we sti 11 follow the holding in S)'ctum, puU-tab macb.ines that mcm~ly dispense and <li!;play
the ra.'lults of paper pull-tabs are not fnc.'limHea. /d. at 542-543.
In /)iaim:md GainrJ 1'. Reno, 230 F.3d 365, (D.C. Cir. 2000), the machine in
ques~ion, Lucky Tab II, sold and dispensed paper pull-tabs from .a roll. The machine also
l'ead and displayed the :results of euch tab, presenting those results in such a way as to
rese.mb1e: a tbree-J'I!l:1 slot :machine, Nonetl1eless., ihe :p.aper tabs could be played and
redeemed manually. The D.C. Circuit held, therefore, that the Lucky Tl:lb ll di.spenser was
not.an electronic facsimile containing all charncteri.sti.cs of pull tabs and thus was not a
Class m device. The "game is in tho paper rolls," the court held . and ll1c Lucky TabU is
.. li1tle more than a high-tech deal-er.'' Jd. ut 370. Like r.uc:ky Tab ll, .Dig.!Deal is a 1'high
tech dealer."
Video Poker machines eom.monJy found in Class m and non-Indian casinqs are
examples; gf electronic fasirnilos. ~nw typical rrrac.bil1'e accepts bets, deals a p-Oker hand.,
evah.tates mt hand agilins.t .the .st~<Iard poker ,rtmkiug$1 and pay$ winning.bands
according to paytableJJ. ThT.1s:.. the tl,utchb1e incQrporates :all of the aspects of the game
offered and i~ an eleetronio f:acsi1nile ota..game.of. chance.
.DigiDeai. on the other hand, inc:o.rporntes some of the aspects ofpokers.hufiling. de~.Hng, and rtmking winning .and losing bands-but not others. Tbe pJacing of
antes and wagers and the player's decisiQn to play OJ' Ji1ld are made by the players. Put
slightly dH'ferently, the.DigiDeal table is :not essential to playing poker. One can play
poker w'ith or without the h\ble. Tho table, therefol'e, lnr;lets all oftbe criteria for a
teclum.logic aid and is not a Chlils lJl electronic facsimile.
next considered whether an otherwise Class 1l card garne is Cl11ss m when played with a
technoJogic aid. The opinion's analy.sl"s bogin~ by asking "whcltler IGRA allows the use
of technologlc aids wi"th card games .. or, mol'e ,specificaUy, whether lORA places lhe use
(lftechno1ogic. aids with card games witl1in Class II." nw opini:on co.nc.ludes that tt doos
not a.nd,.accordiugly, is Class UJ. :But lORA's lan.g\Htge arid legislative hh;tt)ry indicate
that the pr01)er qu~stion is whether JGRAproltibit.<t the use of tcclmoJo.gic aids wi!.h card
games or. me>re spectfica.Jly. whether IGRA e.:tchules th~ :use oftechnolo.gic aids with
card games from Class H. Although a subtle distinctio.n, it lends to a fundamentally
diffe~nt
answ-er.
Tbe ~004 opi1l:iom defines the c.atego.ry of Class ll card games through reading the
definition ofCiat.-s Ubingo. Congress expHcitlypertn'its t.echnologic aids to Class TJ bingo
Appendix A -- A22
but is silent regarding technologic aids to Glass TI card games. The Ot>inion deduces from
tbia that Congress intended that card games played With a technologic aid do not .meet the
definition qf.Class n gaming.. Such reasoning,. however, does not .a:ckilowledge a:
dimncti.on JGRA makes between Cla8s Ubingo and card games.
Althougn IGRA' s Class Udefinition is clear,. the earlier opinion s cm1clusion was
a reasonable, irllltimately .incotrect, interpretation oflGRA.These oppo.sing opinions
and interpretations of IGRA indicate that lORAs Cla.s.s II gaming definition ts open to
interpretation..lmy ambigu.ity, though. is .:re!!Qivl;ld by ~degislat1ve history m1dother
niles.ofStatutory oonstnwtion. The Senate ti';\pOlt and CO..t:lJti'UCtH:m tlfthe Statute ind.ic~tle
!lmt Cht$8 lJ card games may lqc.Iude card games played with a t~hni;ilogic a:id.
Middlese.r Couui)'SrJwe17Jg.e Auth. v. National Sea Clammtrs A.~s 'iz, 453 U.S. 1,13
( 198 t )('"We look fil'St, ofewrse, to the '6taiutory lang~tage; .. Then we review t1'e
legislative history und other LT~ditionul aids of st~ttutory interpretatiot'l to determine
co1:~,grea~iomd .intel!l.").
The Senate Report acconfpanying IGRA ind:icates Congress's intent to include
toohJIOlogic aids to card grunes i.n the Class IT gamirtg definition. The Senate Sel.oct
Commi.ttce on Indian Affairs aftlnned .i:n its .report that it ''intend$ tlH~l tribes be given lhe
opparl\lnity to lake advantage of modem methQds.ofcond\ttting C.lass U.gamesaud the
language regarding technology Is designed to provide maximum. flexibility.'' S, Rep, No.
100-446at p. A-9.
While it is t.n.Je that rtlis language is found in a pnragraph concerned primarily
with bingo, puH tabs. etc . there is no. evidence to suggest that Congress intended its
Appendix A -- A23
Page 6 ofll
policy toward t~lmo.logy t.o be. so.litnited. When IGRA was draftO<I, bingo p.layed with
elect!Vilicequipment
the '~modern 1nethod" ofccmducting Class Il.games. It was a.n
e~tabljshed game, played widely enough to enter Congress's scope of vision. wheil
drafting JGRA.Jd. The same cannot be said of card games played with an electronic aid.
DigiDeal, for exmnp'le di.d not exist until t 998, and a similar company, Poke1Tek, did not
install an electronic poker table in a casino until May 2005. At the time ofiGRA's
passage, curd games were played as they always had been. with physicul cards and a
dealer. The fact that Congress did not specifically address a game not in use at the time of
lORA's passage does not lead to the.conclusi011 that Congress intended to exc.lud~ it from
Class n gaming.
was
,.
In explaining its policy toward technology, a key distinction for the Committee
was that techuologi.cal aids are "readily distinguishable ti:o.tn the use of electtonic
tiwsimiles in which a. single participant plays a game with or against a mach in~ rather
than with or against other players." Jd. Congress was uot concerned that technologic aid8
should b used only witll bingo; rather, it was con.cemed that there is a distinction
between an aid and a facsirn.ile. Such a d:istinction can be made for Class 11 card games as
well as bingo, as is demor.1strated by both this and the 2004 opinion's finding that the
electronic table is n.ot u facsimile,
This policy's application to. all Clas!l U game~, inelu.~jng car(l gam!.'IS. is also -made
evident in the adopted vc.rsi.on o.fiGRA, which specifically e.".cludes "electroni or
electromeohantcni :facshniles of any gan'le of chance or slot machines of any kind" from
Class l1 gamii1g. 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(8), This prohibition. wa:s not applied to bingo o.nly,
but to "all games of chance,'' iudiea.tiug that Congress intended to differentiate between
technologic aids. wbich ar~ acceptable for all Class II games of chance, and electTonic
facsimiles, \Vhich are acceptable for none.
Congress's policy toward technology notwithsta.llding, -it was emphatic about
l'estrictions ou Clasa 11 card games. The Senate Report clarifi.es that. Class ll cardgames is
meant to be an :inclusive cat.egory with specific, narrow exceptions. Class U card gntne.'l.,
according to the Cotmnittee, are uon-banked and should be "operated in conformity with
laws of statewide .application wlth respect to l1o.urs or periods ot operation or limitations
011 wagers or pot sims for such game$." S. Rep. 100446 at p; A-9. The report also details
that ti1e defini lion of card games is to be read in. conj Uliction with what was to 'become
sections27lO(a)(2) and 2710(b)(l){A) oflGRA, which specify that 'Class Il gam.ing can
0.11ly occur on lndi.an lands located in a state that otherwise permits S\ICh gaming. ld. The
Committee specified th.at "[11] o. addfti()nal restria&ms cmt intended by [2703(7){A)(ii)(I)
& (II)]." S. Rep. No. :100~446 atP. A~9 (eJ.nphturis added). Decil:ling that a te4mological
aid to m1 otherwhiQ Ch1ss U o.ard.game.makes the game. Class Tll would create a new
restriction .on Class II garnirig in con.tlict with Co,ngres8.' s clear!y stated intent.
The .2004 opinkm cited to Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. National Indian
Gcuizil!g Commt'ssUm, 327 F.3d 1019 (l01h Cir. 2003) to support its.conclusio:n that
technologic aids to C"-"l'd gamea are not Class II. The scope ofthe case was overestimated
thmlgh. and .it does not negate any of the above analysis. In Seneca.Cayuga, the 10111
Appendix A -- A24
i.
Page 7 of II
Circuit Cou1t of Appeals discussed the definition of Class 11 gaming and, in doing so,
stated:
{lJ]nder IGRA, Class Il games include 1'the gat)l~ of chance commonly
known as bb1gb (whether or not electronic, compmor or otl1cr technologic
aids a.l'e in used in connection therewith) .. .including (ifplayed In the same
location) pull-tabs, 1ot1o, p\lrtch hoards, tip jnrs, inst~mtbi.11go, a11d other
gam ~imilcwto .blngQ ... 1' 25 U.S.C. .2703(7)(A) (emphasis.'supplied).
IGRA :ftlrther provides that ~electl'Onic,.comput:er, or other technologic
aids to s\1cb games are :Class II .gami.l1~ and tbcref:ore pemutted in. Indian
country. Jd.
1032 (em.phMis,inoriginal),
From this, the 2004 op.inion roasoned tbu.rnthe Coul't described lORA as plucing
withln Class 11 only techllOiogic aids to bingo and like games. not aids to non-banking
card games." The opinion put .~pedal emphasis on the court's ~tse of t.he words, "such
games" and surmised that becal.LSe the .court concluded that tec1mo logic aidst~ p'Ulltabs,
etc, are Class TL thQS:e are 'the only technologic aids allowed under Class H gaming. But
such a broad cl.eduction froJt1 'Ule Seneca-Cayuga 9pi'nlon is .not wart:ante~. At no. point i.n
the.Se.neca-CayiLga opinion 'does the court dis.cuss Class Uc.ard games. In fact, when
reciting the definiti-on of Class .ll games. the court leaves card games out entirely. The
10t11 Circuit never claims that fGRA exolucle$tec-b.~\elogic ai<1!! to non-banldt'l'g card gam.e.s
from Cla.~s IT gaming. The court held that technologic akls to "such ga.m.est are Class U
gaming beeause thos.e moe. the'. games tlle opinion wa$ concerned with. f:icne~.(l~Cayuga
.says nothing of technologic aids to Class n card games.
The language of IGRA. its legislative histo~y. and the ntles.ofstau1.tory
construction all champion the inclusion of technologic aidsto car-d games in the Class II
gamil1g definition. Case ~aw citedbytbe 2004 opi:nion to su.pport n oo11trary c611clusion
does not detent that ima:lysis.
~noiQgic Aid~ Eleotronicr~csimllc
A~ discussed above, I agree with the 2.004 DlgiDenl opinion's co.nclu$ion that
D1giDea1 is a t~hnoiogic aid rat11er.tltart an clecb:onic facsimile. It is important to .note,
tl1ough, thai the discussion ofthe OigiDeal system and its ctassHication is limited to the
broade!' category of techno logtc a.idl! to Class U games. Each p\wported aid to a card game
must be looked at individually to ascertaln whether .it is actually an aid or a Class ll I
electrotii~
facsimile.
Appendix A -- A25
Page8ofll
hands. The player still controls the k~;iy nspects oftm).{;er; such as. whether to ante or place
a wager. play a l1and or fold, and when and wl1ether to bluff opponents.
Jf; however, a particular aid to ct1rd games be-comes a necest;ily. or encomp~sses.
alJ the aspects of 11 particular game, it ceases to be a technologic aid and becomes an
electronic fncsimile. For example., in S.vc11an 1Jm1d ofMission Indians v. Roache, 54 F. 3d
535 (9111 Cir. 1994)the United Slate Court of Appeals .held that tl1e "Autotab Modell 01
electroni-c pulltab dispenser" is a class 111 facslmHe of a pull-tab device. The Autotab
Model 101 produced only an electronic reprodu(!tion of a papel' pulMab ticket on a
computer screen. The play~r etootronically picked nun1bers and, if tbe player won, the
rnachine would p,.rtnt o.irt a whmlng. ticket or add the w~nnmg a,tno~uit to a credit balance
for furthorpiay. The game was playod entirely on the machlne withm11 producing a pnper
pull~u\b. The court found that the machine wa:~ n Class ltl facsimile bec~mse "the mMhine
presents self-contained computer gameS copying the pull~ tab pri nclp.lc, and they are
played electronically." Jd. at 542. Autotab wus an. "exact and detailed copy'' of a pulltab
game. /d.
ln ;)'yc:uan, the At\lot~b game was plqyed elecfronically and -encompassed all Lhe
aspects of a pull-tab game. It wastlnls niled a ,Class ill electro.nic facsimile, Similarly,
$hotdd. an olectron:lc pok~rtable or oth~r game cne.or.npassall ofth.c a$pect-s of poker, it
wi.ll be ruled .a Chilli's lH facsi:mile. :P\lt simply, a technologic aidme.rely assists the
p.layct-s; lt is a w.ay to play the game, not the game itself.
Johnson A;gl
Although technologic aids to c-ard gamos are permissible Class U giimes under
IGRA, there ls a question as tu whether the games nre impennissiblc undet the Johnson
Act, whlch prohibits the u.so ofgarnbling devices in lndiau Country. lS U.S.C. 1175.
They are not. The Johnson Act does not apply to Class ll and Class lll g.arnes played
pursuant to lORA.
The Johnson Act (leflnes garnbling device as any slot 1'11achine ~u1d:
Any other maohine or mechanical device (including but not limited to,
roulette wheels and $ilni.lar devices) de.~i8iwd u:ud manufactured primarily
for use h1 connection with gan1bling and (.A) which when operated may
deliver, as the resttlt of the application of an ~lem~nt ofchance, any
money or properly, or {B} by tho operation of-which a person may 'become
entitled to receive, as the result oflhe appll-cation of an element of chance,
any money or pNperty.
15
u.s.c. t 171(1\).
lORA, enacted lo.ng after the Johnson Act, exempts Class m gaming from the
application of the Johnson Act but is silent as to Class li gaming. While courts have not
directly addressed the Johnson Act and technologic aids to Class Il card games., three of
Appendix A -- A26
Page 9ofll
the four circuits that have considered whether IORA implicitly provides a JohllSon Act
exemption (or class ll devices have decided that the Jolmson A~ h; n<:1t applicable to
technologic aids to bingo or Class n pLill tabs, lotto, etc. Although tbe cases tltom~elves
are gmue-~pemflc,the amilysis supporting the de~isions centcrson reco:i:ieili.ng lORA ~md
the Johnsen Act and is equally llPPlicable to technologic aids to card game.s.
Jn 2000, theNi.ntll Circuit Courl of Appeals held that the Johnson Act does not'
United States v. I OJ Elecmmtc
Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091 (9'h Cir. 2000). In reaching its decision. tho court first
found that Megamania is a teclmologic aid t.o biltgo ndhQI: than an electronic facsimile
~Jnd, therefore. Cwss 11. Rl. at 11.0'1. Th.e co11rl thell looked to the text ofJGRA. noting
that it explicitly repealed application ofthe Johnoou Act to Class t1J gruning devices used
p1:1tauartt to a triba:lstate cottlpilCt, but did not address fu:e.re1ation6hfp betw~p the two
nets as a:ppli.ed to ctass 'n g:ilming, )d. 'fhe court 1'~cogni:ied the apparent con:flfct in the
two Ntatutes and reconciled h by reading lhe stat1.ttcs together tQ discover '1how two
enactments by CongreSs over thirty five years apart most comfortably coexist. giving.
each enacting Cong.ress'.s legislation thegrestcst continiting effect," !d.
~ppJy to an e.lectronic bingo game .called Megaman.ia.
With coexistence as its.goal. th.e court tound thnt ''lORA q\lit~ explicitly indicates
that Con.grQSS did not intend to .allow the Johnson Act tq reach bingo aids." ld. Pursuant
to IGRA, bingo u:~ing ~electronic, compllte.r. or other technologic. a:ids" i~ Class IT
gaming. and therefore permitted iulntlian co:unt.ry.Jd. If the Johnson Act prohibited such
aids, lORA's C)a$S 1.1 gamingdefmit~~m wotitd homet~niugless. Jd. H.madeno sense to
the court that Congtess \VOtdd "caretillly protect si.1ch technologic aids,.~yetleave them to
.the wolves pf a Johnso11 Act :forl'eiture action.~ Jd. a.t 1102. The court refl1sed to presume
"'that in enacting lORA, Coll!:.)J'CSS perfortned such a useteas act." !d.
The M:egrunanla game once again came under scrutiny a .few mo.ntbs la:tet i'n
United States v. 16.2 Megam11iia Gambling Devi:es, .Z3'1 F.3d 713. (1011' Cir. 2'000). 11lls
th-m: the Tenth GirclJH C9urt e>f Appeals '(,m&mi.ned the Megm.IIania,ele;<ltronlc l~i.ngp s.runc
artd, like the Ninth Cirol.iit, conehi~d that lt is not.prohibi'ted by lhe'Johnson Act. The
court f-ollowed am~iylioal path..simHar tQ ihat:-ofl~ J'il1nfh Oircurt. lt first esta\,lished
that Meganut~tn is. a Cla.s~ IT t~ht~ologic rod ntJher thalt M eloctro:ni'c f:acsi.itile; From
there, the eourt eortsidered the Jobnsart Acts application an<i held that ~~congress did not
bttendtheJohnson Act tQ app1y:itthe game a.t isl!tte fit~ wit11in :the de:firuti.Oll of a Cl;'ISs n
game and is played with the use of:an i:i:Iectt'<;Jui'l.'tld." Id. at 7.25; For this proposition, the
court l.ooked to the earlier Ninth Cilcuit holding in 1O.J Eiecnonic! Gaming .Devices. lt
also retied on 103 Oamtng .Devices to find thai"the Johnson and Gaming Acts are not
inconsistent and may be construed together in favor ofthe Tribes." !d. The court
expUcitly joined the Ninth Circuit il1 concluding that "MgaMania is not a gambling
devi-ce contemplated by c:Hller [the Johnson Act or IGR.A]." /d.
an
Both Megi\Mmtitt cases .are admitt:edly specific to .electronic bjngo rutd rely at
Joost tn part o.n the technologic .aid language in JGRA 'a Class II gaming defulilion. Other
cas~s. however, h<We ~aken the ;malysls in the M~gaMania cases to the next step and
found that technologic aids to ptill tabs, lotto, etc; are also immtme: from !'be Johnson Act.
Appendix A -- A27
Page /0 of 1I
Absent cl~r cvidenc(.l to the contrary; we will no-t ascribe to Congress the
tntent both to carefttUy craft: through IGRA this ,protection aftbrded to
users of Class II tecllUologkaids and to simultaneously eviscerate those
protections by ~xpo..'fin.g users of (..'lass Il techriologic aids to Johuson Act
liability for the. very conduct authori?..od by lORA.
/d. at 1032.
Similarly, in Diamond Game En.terp~ises v, Reno, 230 F.3d 365 (P.C. Cir. 2000),
tl1e .D.C. Ct!'cuit found that the Johnson Act does not apply to the Lucky Tab U, an
e:lectromecbnnical pull tab dispenser. The cuurt cited to its decisio1\ in C<1bazon .Band q{
Appendix A -- A28
I
I
Pa~e
I 1 oj'./.1
Mit~sionlndians v. Natlon!J,/ Jmlkm Gaming Comm'n, 14 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1994), and
he.ld that nthis COU!t (has] interpreted JGRA limiting the JohmiOn Act prohibitiolllO
devices that arc neHherClass ll games upproved by f.l1e Commission nor Class II1 games
covered by tribal state co.tnpacts." lei. a.t 367. Although the case focuses more on the
classificalion of tho gnme than the appllcatlon of the Johnson Act, it is Clear that the D.C.
Circuit ha$ decided that the Jolmac>rl Act does. not apply to .any Class Jl gmne. As
discussed at length in the preceding section, a technologic aid to an. otherwise Class n
ctml game remains a elass ll game, and according to the D.C. Ci.rcuit, the Johnson Act
does not apply.
as
The .Eighth Circuit, however, has taken an opposing position, Jn.Ufliletl Stares v.
San.teeSiott-;'(~ 324 F.3d 607 (8 111 Cit-. 2003), cert. denied, SiS U.S. 813 (U.S. Oct 5, 1998)
(No.97~t839), the Circuitrejootcd lh~.argument tbal IGRA repeuledihe-Jo\mson Act hy
implic:ation. The CO(Irt pointed to 271 O{b)(l )(A), Which permits Class n gaming on
Indian lands. so lpng as 'it is not specU1ca.llyprohihited on lndian lands by federal law.
The court concludetl that the Johnson Act mtl.~ be the federal law implied iu this section
of lGR.A. !d. at 61 1. This, according to Ule court. clearly indicated that the two statutes
are not irreconcilable and must j)<.nead together. Therefore, a tribe must adhere to both
lORA and the Johnson Act for its Class 11 gari1es to bo 1esal. kl. at 612.
The Eighth Circuit's niling hi Sa.ntee Sioux, howevf.irrcasonab1e jtmny be,
repref'ents a minority am.ong UTe drcuits. Most, including tho District ofCQ1umbiil, which
hasjuri.Hdiction ovC~rNIGC actions, hn:ve decid(!d that theJohn$0b Act is nqt ~pplicable to
Ctass ll games. The N!GC should therefore adopt a similar interpretation. Because a
Cl~$$ il card game played with a techrioJogto aid remtliJ1$_ Class n, the J9hm;on Act docs
not app:ty.
Fo.t the above s.tatcd reasons, tecbilologie aid$ W: otherwise Class U e1trd games
.meet .lORA's definition of Class Jl garning ru1<:i donot vlnlatethe Jolmso.n Act. Ph~ase
contact me or Staff Attorney Michaef Hoenig with. any other questions .or eotn'llients you
may have .
Appendix A -- A29
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
8
9
10
11
12
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CaseNo. 3:14-cv-02724-AJB/NLS
Defendants.
24
25
26
1.
27
State of California (State). If called and sworn, I could testify competently to the
28
2.
with, the Governor and other members of his staff with respect to matters
involving, among other things, tribal gaming, tribal~state gaming compacts, and
gambling in the State. I also am involved with, and contacted by, legislators and
their staff, Indian tribes, and others who are interested in gambling in the State.
Before assuming my present duties, I was the Chief Counsel for the California
8
9
3.
The State and the lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, also known as Santa
Y sahel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (Tribe), entered into a tribal~state class
10
III gaming compact, dated September 8, 2003 (Compact); A true copy of the
11"
12
4.
13
issued by GreatLuck LLC (Great Luck) that announced that the Tribe and Great
14
Luck had launched Internet gambling in the State. That press release stated that the
15
16
browser on any computer, mobile device or tablet" and that California residents
17
"can purchase bingo cards in U.S. currency to be ellgible to win cash prizes." The
18
press release further stated that "[a]t no time is live bingo game action performed
19
by the user." Exhibit A to this declaration is a true copy of that press release.
20
21
gambling press and blogs regarding the Tribe's Internet gambling. Additionally,
22
since the Tribe launched its Internet gambling, I have received inquiries from the
23
staffs of both state and federal legislators regarding what action the State was going
24
to take and whether the State was going to allow that gambling to continue. I.also
25
have received inquiries from other Indian tribes' representatives regarding what
26
action the State was going to take with respect to the Tribe's Internet gambling, and
27
28
2
6.
gambling blogand elsewhere in the gambling press that the Tribe intended to offer
Internet gambling in the form of real money online poker. I concluded that the
proposed Internet gambling would constitute a material breach of the Compact and
violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), California's gamblinglaws, and
the Compact's dispute resolution provisions, I requested by letter, dated July 14,
2014, that the Tribe meet and confer to discuss the issues (meet and confer letter).
The meet and confer letter referred to Internet bingo in addition to online poker.
10 Exhibit B to this declaration is a true copy of the meet and confer letter.
11
12
7.
On July 17, 2014, the Tribe responded to the meet and confer letter. The
Tribe advised that it h~d no intention of discussing any federal statutes, including
13 . IGRAand the UIGEA. The Tribe refused to meet and confer under the Compact's
14
terms. _Exhibit C to this declaration is a true copy of the Tribe's letter refusing to
15
16
8.
Compact section 4.1(c) allows the Tribe to operate "any devices or games
17
that are authorized under state law to the California State Lottery, provided that the
18
[Tribe] will not offer such games through use ofthe Internet unless others_~n the
19
state are permitted to do so under state and federal_law." The California State
20
Lottery has offered games that have bingo as a theme. No one, and the Tribe in
21
particular, presently is permitted to offer any California State Lottery game through
22
the Internet.
23
9., Compact section 9.4(a)(2) does not allow for a claim of monetary
24
damages by either the State or the Tribe in disputes arising under the Compact. The
25
State desires to enforce the Compact to ensure that the Tribe complies with its
26
27
under the Compact: Additionally, the Tribe's Internet gambling targets California
28
residents age eighteen and older irrespective of whether they are located on the
3
Tribe's lands. This impacts the State's interest with respect to gatnbling as setforth
in its Constitution and the Califorhia Penal .Code; Moreover~J know that the Tribe
was not ~he first Indian ttibe within CaJifotQia tbatGreat. LlJ'ck LLC approached to
may begin to offer online gambling that similarly will be available to California
residents, who are not located on Indian lands, without regard to whether federal or
10
11
I declare under penalty ofpeijmythat til# :foregoing is true and correct This
declaration is e:xeeuted on Nov.embe:r17, 2014.;
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l
l
j
2
3
4
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
SARA J. DRAKE, State Bar No. 102565
Senior Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAMP. TORNGREN, State BarNo. 58493
Deputx Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 323-3033
Fax: (916}3'23-2319
E-mail: Willi~. T.ofi!gren@doj '?a.goy
Attorneys for Plamtiff State Of Califorma
10
11
12
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
14
Plaintiff,
v.
15
16
22
23
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
DECLARATION OF MICAH
SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORJ)ER
Date: December 4, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 3B
"Ju~ge: Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia
Tna] Date:
Action Filed: November 18, 2014
24
25
26
1.
27
28
2.
I have been employed by the Bureau, and worked in its Sacramento regional office,
since August 2006. My investigative duties with the Bureau include, among other things, fraud,
cheating, embezzlement, book making, loan sharking, illegal lotteries, organized crime, and other
criminal offenses, as well as violations of California's Gambling Control Act, that are related to
or arise out of tribal and non-tribal gambling and illegal underground gambling in California. I
have participated in investigations concerning individuals' and entities' suitability for licensing or
registration in connection with both tribal and non-tribal gambling. From November 2002 until
joining the Bureau, I was assigned to the California Department of Justice's Northern California
Computer Crimes Task Force. My employment with the California Department of Justice began
10
11
in January 2002. I have been a sworn California peace officer since September 1988.
3.
12
Internet gambling offered by the Iipay Nation of Santa Y sahel, also known as the Santa Y sahel
13
Band ofDiegueno Mission Indians (Tribe). On November 3, 2014, I learned that the Tribe had
14
begun to offer a play-for-money bingo game over the Internet. I was provided with a copy of a
15
press release issued by Great Luck LLC. I confirmed the availability of play for money by
16
accessing the website (Desertrosebingo.com) that the press release identified. The press release
17
reported that the Tribe operates Desert Rose Bingo. The website reports that the Tribe owns and
18
operates Desert Rose Bingo. I accessed the website through the Internet from computers located
19
in Sacramento, California.
20
4.
21
gambling, I caused an account to be opened. The account was funded by a credit card. The
22
account was opened and funded by accessing the Desert Rose Bingo website through the Internet
23
from computers located in Sacramento and near Jackson, California. I also accessed the Desert
24
Rose Bingo website through an iPad. While funding the account by credit card, I observed that
25
an account could be funded by other electronic funds transfers. I further observed that accounts
26
27
28
5.
After an account was funded and as part of my investigation ofthe Tribe's Internet
gambling, I used the Internet to log into the Tribe's bingo website from computers located in
2
Sacramento and near Jackson, California. I did so more than once and also used an iPad. After
logging into the Tribe's bingo website, I placed bets by selecting a "denomination"- amount- to
play. The denominations offered were $1.00 or less. After selecting a denomination, the system
offered me the opportunity to select the number of cards to be played. Once the selections were
made, the system advised that the bet had been submitted and accepted. The amount bet was
6.
After a bet was made as part of my investigation, I had no further active participation
in the play. I only placed a bet and selected the number of cards to be played. The system then
played the game. I could select a "theme," which provided background graphics and
10
entertainment while the Tribe's Internet gambling system played the game. On my computer
11
screen, the system showed a "call count," which apparently was the numbers generated in the
12
game, to the left side ofthe display. The numbers were from 1 to 75 and were circled as they
13
were generated. Displayed to the right ofthe "call count" was what appeared to be a bingo card
14
with twenty-five blocks below the word "BINGO." Twenty-four blocks contained numbers; the
15
center block was denominated "free space." As numbers were generated in the "call count,"
16
corresponding numbers on the facsimile bingo card were highlighted. If my bet won, the game
17
ended by displaying "bingo." If my bet lost, the game ended by displaying: "Proxy of [screen
18
19
7.
As part of my investigation, I did not go to the Tribe's Indian lands to register for or
20
open an account. I did that through the Internet from computers located in Sacramento and near
21
Jackson. As part of my investigation, I did not go to the Tribe's Indian lands to place a bet. I did
22
that through the Internet from computers located in Sacramento and Jackson. I also accessed the
23
Tribe's Internet gambling system using an iPad. As part of my investigation, I did not go to the
24
Tribe's Indian lands to participate in a bingo game. Rather, the Tribe's Internet gambling system
25
did everything after my bet was made. My observation is that the Tribe's Internet gambling
26
system encompasses, and appears to be a replica of, all the aspects of a bingo game.
27
28
3
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration is
executed on November 17, 2014.
3
4
MICAH SCOTT
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4