Twenty Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
- March 5, 2019: Notice of (Non-Gaming) Land Acquisition Application for Twenty-Nine Palms Band for 2.40 acres.
- July 21, 2017: Notice of Land Acquisition Application for the Twenty-Nine Palms Band for 96.44 acres
- June 6, 2017: 2.40 ac. Fee to Trust - Non Gaming
- Jan. 28, 2013: EIS - "#2" On Reservation Casino
- November 10, 2011: Senator Feinstein Opposes Off Reservation Casino
- May 20, 2010: 29 Palms v Governor Schwarzenegger - judgment
- Pursuant to the Order filed herewith, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court orders that such judgment be entered.
- May 19, 2010: 29 Palms v Governor Schwarzenegger Court Order
- The Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend, as Plaintiff has now had four opportunities to present sufficient factual allegations to state a claim, and has failed to do so. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to explain it could remedy the deficiencies set forth above through further amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
- April 26, 2010: 29 Palms v California State Franchise Tax Board
- California has sovereign authority to tax Indians resident within its borders who do not live on reservations. IGRA does not impliedly preempt the tax because the tax does not interfere with the Tribe’s gaming operation or Congress’ purpose of ensuring that the Tribe is the primary beneficiary of its gaming operation. (Mot. 8-13.) Further, the tax does not interfere with Tribal self-governance because it impacts only members living offreservation and does not substantially affect essential governmental functions.
- April 5, 2010: Memorandum of Points and Authorities
- The Tribe asserts that the State Defendants’ efforts to impose personal income tax liability on Tribal members’ per capita payments or casino wages is preempted by federal law and interferes with Tribal sovereignty. The TAC fails to state a claim for relief that is cognizable as a matter of law because, under federal common law, while a tribal member living on her tribe’s reservation is ordinarily exempt from state personal income tax on income earned from on-reservation activities, in this case no Tribal member lives on the Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe’s attempt to explain why its members live off-reservation is irrelevant to a determination whether the exemption applies.
- Feb. 26, 2010: 29 Palms 3rd Amended Complaint
- Tribe should not have to pay state franchise Tax board
- Jan. 15. 2010: Spotlight 29 Casino Cuts Workers Pay 12 Percent
- Jan. 9, 2010: Destination: Spotlight 29 Casino
- Oct. 1, 2009: Twenty-Nine Palms v Governor Schwarzenegger
- The Tribe has filed suit against the State of California to evade personal income taxes. The Tribe is claiming that they could not build homes on reservation land. While the suit speaks of the Reservation in Coachella it omits the reservation in Twenty Nine Palms. Tribes who reside on reservations do not have to pay state taxes. But if tribal members live on fee land individuals must pay like anyone else.
- June 2008: Agenda Item 9.1.
- Proposed Casino Project
- April 28, 2008: Governor Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment
- The Draft EA is inadequate in many respects.
- April 25, 2008 City of Twenty Nine Palms Responds
- Jan. 24, 2008: City of 29 Palms Staff Report on Proposed Casino
- Dec. 12, 2007: Casino Expansion Press Release
- Identifies proposed project
- Oct. 6, 2004: Twentynine Palms Tribal Allocation Plan
- August 23, 2004: Roll of the Dice
- Wall Street Journal by John R. emshwiller and Christina Binkley
Document Actions