Those Arizonans interested in wagering on Thursday night’s NFL opening season game between Super Bowl champs Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Dallas Cowboys will be able to legally do so, courtesy of a court order issued Monday.
Maricopa County Judge James Smith denied a request by the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe for a temporary restraining order (TRO) which would have postponed the Sept. 9 start of mobile sports betting within the state of Arizona. An attorney for the Arizona Department of Gaming argued that postponement had the potential to result in “millions per month” of financial losses to several businesses involved in the new gaming opportunities allowed under Arizona’s 2021 Indian Gaming Compact negotiated by Gov. Doug Ducey.
In its request for the TRO, the tribe argued that allowing the new 2021 gaming compact negotiated by to go into effect would result in “direct, substantial and uncertain injury” for its members. Such results would reduce the amount of revenues available for tribal operations and programs, the lawsuit alleged.
The tribe also argued that Proposition 202 which was approved by voters in 2002 to create gaming compacts with Native American tribes, so state lawmakers can only amend the initiative if it furthers” the purpose of the original proposition.
However, Smith ruled the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe was unlikely to prevail in its lawsuit, which still remains in play against Ducey as well as Ted Vogt, the director of the Department of Gaming. But it’s clear the odds are not in favor of the tribe securing an order invalidating the 2021 Compact or House Bill 2772 signed by Ducey which changed parts of state law related to gaming.
Supporters of expanded gaming in Arizona welcomed Smith’s ruling, as the Sept. 9 start date for the new betting options is the same day the NFL begins its regular season. One of those supporters is Rep. Jeff Weninger (R-LD17) who helped ensure passage of HB2772 and worked with Ducey to amend the nearly 20-year-old compacts.
“Thrilled to hear this decision and I am excited for event wagering to start on Thursday,” Weninger tweeted Monday evening. “Today was a good day.”
Some Arizona sports teams are even promoting the new gaming opportunities to their fans, such as the Phoenix Suns’ sweepstakes offered for those who preregister with FanDuel. The prize is an opening night suite and $1,000 in team shop credit.
By not signing on to Ducey’s 2021 Compact, Yavapai-Prescott will likely lose out even more than most, because its two casinos are limited to games allowed under its 2003 Compact, which does not permit games such as craps and baccarat included under the new compact.
During Monday’s special court hearing, Smith learned that the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe had been in settlement discussions with the Department of Gaming until late August. Whether those negotiations will continue is unclear, nor is it certain what options would be available under current law and the 2021 Compact.
Another question will be whether the new gaming options increase overall betting activity across the state or simply pull revenue away from the 17 tribes which currently operate casinos across the state.
In addition to the new games which can be offered at tribal casinos, the 2021 Compact allows 10 of the 22 tribes in Arizona to be licensed to engage in off-reservation mobile sports betting. Those licenses have been awarded to the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Tohono O’odham Nation, and Tonto Apache Tribe.
The 2021 Compact also allows 10 professional sports teams to be licensed for off-reservation mobile sports betting along with offering books at select sports venues. Those licenses were issued to the Arizona Cardinals, Arizona Coyotes, Arizona Diamondbacks, Arizona Rattlers, Phoenix Mercury, Phoenix Speedway, Phoenix Suns, and TPC Scottsdale.
There is one other active lawsuit against the Department of Gaming related to new sports betting opportunities, but its claims are not going to stymie the start of mobile sports betting.
Turf Paradise contends its Phoenix-area horse track qualifies for one of the professional sports licenses and that the decision to deny its application was incorrect. The lawsuit was filed even though the owners of Turf Paradise have administratively appealed the denial to Vogt.
Representatives Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), David Schweikert (R-AZ-06), and Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) are original cosponsors on legislation to award Congressional Gold Medals to the 13 service members killed in Kabul last week. The Congressional Gold Medal is widely considered the highest congressional expression of appreciation on behalf of the nation.
The 13 service members were Johanny Rosario Pichardo, Nicole Gee, Darin Hoover, Hunter Lopez, Daegan Page, Humberto Sanchez, David Espinoza, Jared M. Schmitz, Rylee Mccollum, Dylan Merola, Kareem Nikoui, Maxton Soviak, and Ryan Knauss.
Representative Lisa McClain (R-MI-10) introduced the legislation on Tuesday. As McClain noted in her legislation, the 13 service members’ deaths marked the single deadliest day in the Afghanistan war in over 10 years.
“The American service members went above and beyond the call of duty to protect citizens of the United States and our allies to ensure they are brought to safety in an extremely dangerous situation as the Taliban regained control over Afghanistan,” read the legislation. “The American service members exemplified extreme bravery and valor against armed enemy combatants. The American service members dedicated their lives and their heroism deserves great honor.”
If awarded, the medals would be given to the Smithsonian Institution to memorialize the service members and the day of the Kabul attack: August 26.
A total of 150 other representatives have signed onto the legislation: 129 Republicans, and 21 Democrats.
The representatives to sign on were Don Young (R-AK), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Jerry Carl (R-AL), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Bruce Westermann (R-AR), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Young Kim (R-CA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Mike Garcia (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Pete Aguilar (D-CA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), Stephanie Murphy (D-FL), Greg Steube (R-FL), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Al Lawson (D-FL), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Scott Franklin (R-FL), Brian Mast (R-FL), Darren Soto (D-FL), Maria Salazar (R-FL), Byron Donalds (R-FL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Jody Hice (R-GA), Rick Allen (R-GA), Drew Ferguson (R-GA), Buddy Carter (R-GA), Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Lucy McBath (D-GA), Ashley Hinson (R-IA), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Randy Feenstra (R-IA), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Mike Bost (R-IL), Jim Banks (R-IN-), Larry Buschon (R-IN-), Andre Carson (D-IN), Russ Fulcher (R-IN), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Victoria Spartz (R-IN), Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN), Greg Pence (R-IN), Tracey Mann (R-KS), Jake LaTurner (R-KS), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Garret Graves (R-LA), Julia Letlow (R-LA), Seth Moulton (D-MA), Bill Keating (D-MA), Andy Harris (R-MD), Jared Golden (D-ME), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Peter Meijer (R-MI), Tim Walberg (R-MI), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Elise Slotkin (D-MI), Tom Emmer (R-MN), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Jason Smith (R-MO), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Michael Guest (R-MS), Don Bacon (R-NE-), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Greg Murphy (R-NC), David Rouzer (R-NC), Ted Budd (R-NC), Dan Bishop (R-NC), Chris Pappas (D-NH), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Yvette Herrell (R-NM), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Ruben Gallego (D-NV), Steven Horsford (D-NV), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Chris Jacobs (R-NY), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Joseph Morelle (D-NY), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Bob Latta (R-OH), Dave Joyce (R-OH), Mike Turner (R-OH), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), Stephanie Bice (R-OK-), Tom Cole (R-OK), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), G.T. Thompson (R-PA), Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Dusty Johnson (R- SD), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), David Kustoff (R-TN), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Lance Gooden (R-TX), August Pfluger (R-TX), Randy Weber (R-TX), Roger Williams (R-TX), Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), Filemon Vela (D-TX), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Blake Moore (R-UT), Burgess Owens (R-UT), John Curtis (R-UT), Bob Good (R-VA), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Ben Cline (R-VA), Elaine Luria (D-VA), Jaime Herrera-Beutler (R-WA), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA), Bryan Steil (R-WI), Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), David McKinley (R-WV), Carol Miller (R-WV), Alex Mooney (R-WV), and Liz Cheney (R-WY).
The former CEO of one of Arizona’s largest healthcare companies must pay nearly $774.500 before Nov. 19 to ensure his plea deal on fraudulent schemes charges stays in place, and give himself a better chance to avoid a prison sentence.
William J. Timmons, former head of Hacienda Inc, and various nursing care and health supply businesses is set to be sentenced in the Maricopa County Superior Court after pleading guilty in June to two Class 2 felonies stemming an elaborate scheme that bilked Arizona taxpayers out of millions of dollars through improper billing for services.
Timmons, 74, will have an opportunity to argue mitigating factors to Judge Timothy Ryan in an attempt to get probation instead of prison. But first, he must pay $500,000 in restitution to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) and $274,500 in fines to the Arizona Attorney General’s anti-racketeering revolving fund.
Failure to make the payments could lead Ryan to reconsider the plea deal.
Meanwhile, Timmons’ co-defendant Joseph O’Malley will be back in court Sept. 24 for a case management conference in advance of his March 2022 trial on similar charges. O’Malley,58, remains out of custody pending trial.
In August 2020, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced that a grand jury had indicted Timmons and O’Malley following an investigation into allegations the two intentionally misallocated funds from AHCCCS as well as the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Division of Developmental Disabilities.
Timmons, who had been with Hacienda for nearly 30 years until 2019, faces up to 12.5 years in state prison on each of the counts. However, his plea deal did not contain a prison-mandatory stipulation, so Timmons can argue for probation. If Ryan does impose a prison sentence, the minimum would be three years.
Hacienda has already agreed to repay AHCCCS nearly $11 million in overpayments. A repayment plan calls for an initial payment of $7 million followed by monthly payments of $50,000.
In addition, the company has consented to a $1 million fine which will be allocated between the AHCCCS Inspector General and the Attorney General’s Office. In exchange, the State has agreed to not pursue criminal or civil action against Hacienda provided the company complies with the consent agreement.
The Attorney General’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into Hacienda’s finances in early January 2019 after learning the company failed to comply with its contract terms. Among the allegations is that the company engaged in improper billing from 2013-2018.
The investigation also revealed that the Hacienda board of directors did not receive accurate financial data from Timmons and O’Malley, nor had the directors inquired as to the company’s performance. A new administrative team was put into place in March 2019.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office (AGO) is warning Arizonans to watch out for Hurricane Ida charity scams. According to the AGO, there are already reports of fake organizations popping up asking people for money to help victims in Louisiana.
Hurricane Ida hit Louisiana on Sunday and has caused widespread catastrophic damage. While many are eager to help those in need, Attorney General Brnovich wants consumers to do their homework before donating.
The AGO offers the following tips to avoid scams:
Never give on impulse. Don’t give in to high-pressure requests for contributions or donations. Legitimate charities will not pressure you for an immediate donation and are happy to provide information about their charity for you to review.
Do your research about the organization and ask questions. For example, how will the funds reach those in need?
Obtain written information (including annual reports) about a charity before you donate. Always know how much of your donation will actually go to the charity itself versus administrative costs. You can find out more about a charity through Charity Navigator‘s website or the Better Business Bureau’s www.give.org.
Do not give donations in cash or by wire transfer.
Make contributions directly to known organizations rather than relying on a third-party.
Watch out for charities with names that sound similar to well-known organizations. Oftentimes, these sound-alike names are scams.
Be cautious of individuals representing themselves as surviving victims of a disaster or as government officials asking for donations.
Do not give unsolicited callers your credit card number or bank account information over the phone, even if the call appears to be legitimate.
Do not click on links in unsolicited emails and text messages asking you to donate. Even if a message seems legitimate, it could be a phishing attempt. If you want to donate, contact the charity at a website or phone number you know to be valid.
Be cautious when donating to a GoFundMe fundraiser. It is common for scammers to set up GoFundMe fundraisers after highly publicized events and then disappear with the money.
“It’s disgusting how fraudsters waste no time after a natural disaster to capitalize on people’s goodwill,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “Arizonans are very generous, and I want to make sure they are donating to a legitimate charity that has experience helping victims quickly.”
The AGO advises consumers who believe they have been a victim of consumer fraud, to contact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in Phoenix at (602) 542-5763, in Tucson at (520) 628-6648, or outside the metro areas at 1(800) 352-8431.
The Navajo Nation has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior and the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation in an attempt to secure the proper conclusion of federal relocation for over 16,000 Navajos, something that was previously ordered to be completed in 1986.
The lawsuit filed in late August with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Prescott on behalf of the Nation and more than 50,000 of its affected citizens seeks a court order forcing the U.S. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (Office of Relocation) to remain open and provide the relocation assistance, and community facilities and services promised and mandated by Congress decades ago.
According to the lawsuit, the Office of Relocation established in 1988 and its predecessor, the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, have relocated over 3,700 households of Navajo families comprising over 16,000 Navajo citizens from their ancestral lands within the 2.5 million acres of the 1882 Reservation.
But the Nation alleges the Office of Relocation has failed to provide relocation services for many other households, and has failed to ensure the availability of community facilities and services -such as water, sewers, roads, schools, and health facilities- for households at on-reservation relocation sites.
The Relocation Act is the compilation of Congressional actions dating back to the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 and its subsequent amendments, including the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act of 1980 and the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments of 1988. It involves mandatory relocation of Navajos off some Reservation land partitioned off for members of the Hopi Tribe.
The Nation’s lawsuit puts forth claims on behalf of itself and over 50,000 of its citizens being adversely affected by the ongoing failure of the Office of Relocation to properly discharge its federal duties, which included implementing a Congressionally approved relocation plan.
The Office of Relocation traces its start to 1943 when a 642,000-acre area of the Reservation designated as District 6 was set aside for the exclusive use of the Hopi Tribe. Eventually all Navajo residents of District 6 were evicted by the U.S. government.
The remaining 1.8 million or so acres of the Reservation were for the “joint, equal, and undivided” (JUA) use of both Tribes. However, conflicts over the JUA continued for several years, and by 1974 a partition plan was enacted for the forced relocation of thousands of Navajos off what became known as Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL).
The lawsuit calls the still ongoing relocation of Navajos from HPL “the largest forced relocation of any racial group in the United States since the relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.”
Hopis also had to leave what came known as Navajo Partitioned Land (NPL), and according to government reports that part of the relocation was completed by 2013.
The Settlement Act 1974 tasked a Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission with developing a relocation plan. It also required a reduction in livestock grazing on JUA lands, which harmed several Navajo farmers and ranchers.
In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was ordered to acquire land from the Navajo Nation within Arizona and Mexico “to be held in trust” for the Nation. Those lands would come to be known as “New Lands” and would be where many of the relocatees were placed.
Over the years, Congress passed laws related to a formal Relocation Plan under which the United States had a duty to assure schools, roads, power, and other facilities for relocation to the New Lands. Other provisions of the Settlement Act took effect in July 1981 with a five-year deadline for relocation to be completed.
However, a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 1991 noted that only 68 percent of the eligible families had been relocated. By then, the July 1986 deadline had been missed by five years.
In 2005, a Congressional hearing noted that the cost of the federal relocation program over the preceding 36 years was almost half a billion dollars, which was more than 10 times what Congress estimated in 1974. The cost was also equivalent to what the United States was spending at the time in Iraq every 36 hours, the lawsuit states.
By 2018, the Office of Relocation announced it planned to cease operations and transfer its activities to another agency, even though the Department of Interior admitted the Relocation Act did not authorize such a move. Hundreds of Navajo relocation-certified households were still awaiting services at the time. Many others had the right to pursue eligibility by filing a claim with the federal court of appeals, the Department of Interior reported.
Even so, the Office of Relocation contended it had “fulfilled the duties it was legislatively assigned by providing relocation benefits to all individuals who were found eligible and that other services such as infrastructure should be provided by another permanent agency.”
The Navajo Nation and the Hope Tribe oppose the transfer, which even the Bureau of Indian Affairs admits “could further delay relocation.” The GAO worries that transferring relocation to another agency “likely would increase” program costs and delay completion of relocation.
“July 2021 was the 35th anniversary of the statutory deadline to complete relocation,” the Nation’s lawsuit states. “However, relocation still has not yet been completed and significant issues and work remain outstanding to complete relocation.” In addition, not all of the 400,000 acres of New Lands has been acquired and transferred as required under the Relocation Act, the lawsuit points out.
But it isn’t just direct relocation services to families that the Office of Relocation is accused of failing to provide.
The Office of Relocation is also responsible for developing community facilities and services, such as water, sewers, roads, schools, and health facilities, as well as power, telephone, and other utilities, at the relocation sites, many of which are on the New Lands, which is wholly populated by Navajo relocatees and their families.
According to the lawsuit, many relocatees and their communities (known as Chapters) rely on extensive unpaved roads that are in poor condition, live in homes with no indoor plumbing or easy-access potable water supplies, and do not have proper watering systems for livestock.
“Many communities with many relocatees lack sufficient electricity or appropriate septic or sewer systems,” the lawsuit contends. “These issues are especially problematic for elders during cold winters. There also are inadequate schools in many relocate areas,” which require students to commute hours each way to school.
“Finally, many Chapters seriously impacted by relocation lack adequate access to health and emergency facilities, which places all lives there at greater risk,” the lawsuit alleges. “This extreme delay is also unreasonable because it fundamentally concerns human health and welfare.”
The Nation is asking for an injunction prohibiting the Office of Relocation from shutting down. The lawsuit also seeks an order compelling the Department of Interior to ensure all Relocation Act services and benefits are made available without further delay.
An answer is expected to the filed by the U.S. Government later this month.
