Alert: Court: Settle feud in tribal land case yourselves
11:56 AM Fri, Oct 31, 2008 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« Turn back your clock; it could help your heart |
Main
| Update: Central Falls puts more bite in its teen curfew »
The U.S. Supreme Court has sent the question of who will handle a landmark tribal land case back to the parties involved. This morning, the court denied Charlestown's assistant solicitor for Indian Affairs Joseph Larisa's emergency motion for reconsideration of his request for a divided presentation on Monday. The justices also rejected the suggestion of a coin toss to decide who would argue the case -- Larisa or former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson. As a result, it goes back to the parties involved to settle the dispute, which has been going on for weeks. Governor Carcieri and state Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch back Olson, the lawyer who successfully argued the 2000 case that put President George W. Bush in the White House. Charlestown council members backed Larisa, who's worked on the case for the town and the state for a decade. The case challenges a decision by the department to take 31 acres in Charlestown in trust for the Narragansett Indian tribe. Trust status would free the land from most state and local laws and place it under federal and tribal control. Rhode Island and Charlestown leaders fear it could open the door to a casino or other venture immune to state oversight. The state, which was joined in the suit by Charlestown, has lost in all the lower courts. -- With reports from Journal staff writers Katie Mulvaney, Randal Edgar and Michael P. McKinney Yesterday, two of Charlestown's four council members -- the fifth member resigned in June and has not been replaced -- tried to hold two meetings, one at 10 a.m. and another at 3 p.m., to resolve the impasse. Council members Katharine H. Waterman and Harriet A. Allen boycotted both. Acting Council President James M. Mageau and Councilman Bruce W. Picard said they were going to support a compromise deal by which Olson would argue the case but Larisa would be part of the defense team and be allowed to sit with Olson. The Supreme Court set a deadline of noon yesterday for the parties to name a lawyer. After the Charlestown council failed to get a quorum for yesterday's morning meeting, the state asked the court to designate Olson. 
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
Tags 
New comments
New photos
Authors
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
This is really embarrassing. I see no winners in this argument.
Report Abuse
the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States needs to step in and settle an internal squabble should be an embarrassment to the people of this state - not to mention Emperor Carcieri and his little clique of sycophantic money hungry lawyers.
Report Abuse
Thank you Jim Mageau for answering the call...Shame on those 2 councilors who sherked their duties!
Report Abuse
I certainly hope the Supreme Court rejects Charlestown's request. They had plenty of opportunity to resolve this matter, but did not even bother to show up to resolve it. Egos must be a big thing in Charlestown! Especially, Mr. Larisa. It is a State suit, so the State should name the attorney to argue the case. Let Mr. Larisa and the other circus performers from Charlestown sit in the peanut gallery and watch the proceedings. The ship to resolve things sailed yesterday. Hopefully, these council members who couldn't be bothered to show up will have their political careers terminated next election.
Report Abuse
Why would the Supreme Court of the United States even consider hearing arguments from a disfunctional backwoods town council like Charlestown? What an embarrasment to the state of Rhode Island. On the upside, this really should make voting for the Charlestown Town Council a no-brainer on Tuesday.
Report Abuse
Hmm. The guy who has argued before the SC dozens of times before or the hack from Rhodey....
Tough choice.
The lazy Council members in Charlestown should be recalled by their electorate.
Report Abuse
The argument wasn't over who should present but rather which arguments to argue. Charlestown wanted both arguments - on Q1 and Q2 to be presented. The Gov and AG wanted only one to be argued...which waters down our case but, I believe, leaves intact the State's ability to throw Charlestown to the wolves - i.e. sacrafice our tiny town to the Narragansettes - in the case of a loss. The gov's own lawyer repeatedly reasssured me Q2 was the one we could win on...and I bet now it won't even be mentioned at oral argument! The state threatened to throw the whole case if they couldn't control what arguments are made and it came down to who cared more for the state and the Town - us or them. We settled for half an argument to be made rather than none. Harriet Allen, Charlestown Town Council 401 364-6721
An no, we aren't but bunch of idiots here, it just we are smart enough to know about the gov's contingency plans...and how that is and will influence oral arguments. No wonder the govs attorney told me NO we could not talk to Olsen and particularly we couldn't talk to him about his conflict of interest in this matter, a conflict the govs attorney did not deny.
Report Abuse