Originally Posted By: Krijack
I still wonder how "mischaracterization" of the tribal positions by observers " plays into allowing full access via closed camera. I believe the tribes could argue against outside comments during negotiations, by stating such are not part of an active negotiation and would be disruptive, but they have not argument that I feel would over ride the public interest and law. In a case where both sides are court ordered to negotiate, and where the constraints of one party (OPMA) would have not negative effect of the second party, I see no way they can impose their will. I say no negative effect as it is assumed that the state is negotiating for its population and said party would and should oversee that negotiation. I see it no different in a court stating that two parties need to mediate an agreement and one party wants only to allow the opposing attorney in the room and not the actual concerned party.


I agree that the Tribes will have a difficult time justifying why. BUT the state will have even a harder time trying to explain to us why they want to keep us in the dark, especially after it's gotten so much attention.

Believe me, I WILL YELL IT FROM EVERY MOUNTAIN TOP IF THEY TRY SOME BS!! Plus I will send it out to every person that signed the Petition!!
_________________________
"Forgiveness is between them and God. My job is to arrange the meeting."

1Sgt U.S. Army (Ret)