MGM To Acquire Boyd Gaming's 50-Percent Stake In Borgata
Excerpt:
Borgata also has the largest online gambling business in the state. It’s one of five online casino operators there. Borgata had $45.7 million in online gaming revenue in 2015, nearly a third of the state’s total. The licensed online gaming sites under the Borgata are Borgatacasino.com, Borgatapoker.com, NJ.Partypoker.com, palacasino.com and palabingousa.com.
In February it was announced that Borgata would migrate from the Party platform to United Kingdom-based GAN, formerly GameAccount Network. The launch of the GAN-Borgata product is expected in the second quarter of this year. Borgata also has a partnership with Pala Interactive, an online gaming company from the Pala Band of Mission Indians in California.
Read More Here:
MGM To Acquire Boyd Gaming's 50-Percent Stake In Borgata
17 comments:
Shouldn't it say RobertSmith inc instead of Pala? Isn't he the major shareholder? Trump got Christy to bail out New Jerseys failing casinos and his investor friend. You know Trump won't want tribes involved in the online gambling. It cuts into his friends bottom line...goodbye Palainteractive if Trump wins.
Everybody stopped talking shit...lol.
When everyone is quiet is when you should worry. People are starting to act and tired of the talking. Don't think because it's quiet people aren't busy. Robert is making more and more enemies with every corrupt unjust action he takes and those that back him will fall with him or from my guess will abandon that sinking ship! The future for Pala is one of rebuilding.
Here is another thing for you Pala People to think about.
If something were to happen to Smith that would keep him from his duties as Chairman, Howard Maxcey would be line to serve as Chairman
until there was an election for a new Chairman.
Everyone from Pala and through out Indian country knows how bad Maxcey
is and knows that he would NOT be an honest Chairman.
So with that being said Pala better wake up and elect a new Chairman this coming year, that is if you really want a change on your Reservation, because I don't think that Smith's health will last to much longer.
And everyone knows that if Maxcey takes over he knows how to stay in charge even if the people don't like it.
Ne will have a new Golf Course built within a year in Pala, not Morongo.
Has pala re enrolled the britian 1/16 descendants yet?
Of course they have not. Why would you ask that, unless you know something the rest of us do not.
No, I don't know anything. I am part of a group of students that are fallowing a few different dis enrollment cases. Pala is one of them because it is a unique case. I occasionally check your blog to see what if any progress has been made. There has not been a lot of activity on your blog so I thought maybe they had been re enrolled.
Robert will never re-enroll, he just can't find it in himself to do the right thing. He is in the process of trying to get land from members who have allottments but no homes on them and he is not allowing some elders to have power and water hook-ups, while he is also taking homes from members who let the disenrolled live with them, (ie) their children.
There is an appeal of the disenrollments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has yet to be decided. It has been several months now since the hearing and still no decision. The disenrollees should be encouraged. A quick decision would have probably resulted had the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court dismissal. Instead they are taking their time and perhaps carefully deliberating the legal implications.
A decision should be forthcoming soon, and there is a chance that it will be a favorable one to the disenrollees.
They are just waiting for the new SCOTUS appointee.
I am also looking forward to the ninth circuit court decision. If the court rules in favor of the disenrollees and the EC chooses to appeal the decision, i believe the EC still has to honor the ruling and re enroll during there appeal process.
The EC cannot appeal the decision. The EC is not a party to the lawsuit. Only the Secretary of the Interior can appeal the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court panel of judges if it is favorable to the disenrollees.
The disenrollees have four claims. A favorable decision to the disenrollees would reverse the lower court dismissal. The Court can then award or deny claims in whole or in part. Simply put the four claims are:
1) The Pala Constitution is invalid and federal approval should be revoked.
2) The Pala Enrollment Ordinance should not be applied to enrolled members.
3) The 1989 Final Decision should be upheld
4) The Ravago minors should be joined as Plaintiffs.
A decision favorable to the disenrollees would not necessarily result in reinstatement. However, it is likely that any favorable decision would result in some sort of memorandum order from the BIA reversing the blood degree change.
The Ravago minors should be joined as Plantiffs??? What does that mean or include? Invalidating the constitution seems hard for a court to rule on but upholding the 1989 final decision and siding with the Pala enrollment ordinance change should not apply to already enrolled members at the time would mean the disenrollee's would be reinstated.
It means the Ravago minors would join the group of Plaintiffs suing the Secretary of the Interior, the AS-IA, and others. They weren't included in the original appeal to the AS-IA, but wanted to join in the appeal. Kevin Washburn did not allow them to join in the appeal, so now the attorney for Aguayo (the Trujillos) is asking the court to allow them to become one of the Plaintiffs.
As far as invalidating the PBMI Constitution, the only thing propping it up is federal approval. The lower Court ruled that the statute of limitations has expired on appeal of the approval of the PBMI Constitution. It is possible that the Court could rule that the BIA issued approval improperly, but I would not place any bets on that happening.
Upholding the 1989 Final Decision should mean that the Pala EC's decrease in MB's blood degree would be ruled invalid. The BIA should have made that ruling from the very beginning. Does that mean reinstatement? I don't know. Robert Smith has already rejected the Final Decision. I guess we will find out soon enough.
If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals waits for a new Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed then we are talking next year for a decision. There is no time limit for the Court to issue a decision.
Maybe they are looking into the RICO violations of the Pala EC, which were mentioned in the appeal and also in other cases against the Pala EC.
A quick decision would have been a bad one for the disenrolled
Hopefully the Circuit Court is researching all the facts that were submitted and all records from the U.S.Government that were also submitted.
Aguayo v. Jewell is a civil case where the Plaintiffs are suing the BIA for violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. Criminal offenses of the Pala EC are not part of the allegations, and the Pala EC is not a party in this suit. The Plaintiff is not seeking any remedy for RICO offenses so I do not think the Pala EC's wrongdoing will have a large impact on the Court's decision.
Don't get me wrong though. The Court must consider the harm and injury suffered by the Plaintiff. The Pala EC has been enabled to inflict such harm through the improper decisions of the BIA. However, there is little chance that any criminal charges will come out of the Court's decision. That is the U.S. Attorney's job.
Post a Comment