Skip to main content

GOVERNOR PATERSON AND ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCE LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN FEDERAL LAND INTO TRUST DECISION

ALBANY, N.Y. (June 19, 2008) – Governor David A. Paterson and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo jointly announced today that the Governor, the counties of Oneida and Madison, and State of New York have filed a lawsuit to overturn an administrative decision by U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs authorizing the transfer of more than 13,000 acres of land in Oneida and Madison Counties from being taken into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation.

The State will argue that Secretary Kempthorne’s decision is unconstitutional, because New York State has continuously exercised jurisdiction over its lands since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, including the lands which are the subject of the land into trust decision, and has never consented to the removal of such land from State jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution does not grant to the United States the authority to remove land from a State’s jurisdiction for the purpose of providing such land to an Indian tribe without first obtaining the consent of the affected State.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...