Wednesday, April 1, 2009
House Resources Committe Webcast
This was an absolutely fascinating discussion to watch. This was very educational, and I suspect that each and every one of our dedicated Selectmen gave of their time to listen to experts (some with a definite bias) discuss the ramifications and possible solutions to Carcieri.
I must say that, of the three witnesses testifying, I appreciated Attorney Mitchell's testimony the most. He really did seem to be the only one with no dog in this race. It also seemed like many of the panel members were asking questions prepared by their clerks, and not really up to date on details--but this seemed more of a preliminary meeting than anything else.
I hope that members of this debate in Middleborough all watched.
P.S.: One of the more interesting questions raised was what happens to people convicted of federal crimes based on acts committed on Indian land where the Tribe was not a recognized Tribe in 1934? There was no federal jurisdiction on that case, so do those convicts have a basis for reversal of the conviction due to lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction? I know it has nothing to do with the casino, but it sure was a fascinating question.
Posted by AMB at 11:54 AM