application. I asked Mr. Hartman if there were any problems with the application and he said "nothing that isn't curable." 6. On June 26, 1995, I telephoned defendant George Skibine, Director of the Indian Gaming Management Staff, to ask about the status of the staff's report on the Tribes application. Mr. Skibine said that he wanted to keep his job and therefore could not discuss what was in the staff's report. 7. At a result of Mr. Skibine's comments to me on June 26, 1995 and Galaxy's and the Tribes growing alarm at the political pressure being asserted against the application and the failure of the Department to communicate with either the Tribes or their representatives about what was happening with the application. I telephoned Secretary Babbitt on July 11, 1995 and requested a meeting with the Secretary. At that time, the Secretary told me that he would have John Duffy call me. Mr. Duffy called me later that day from an airplane and said that the Department was ready to make a decision. I requested a meeting with Mr. Duffy for later that week. Mr. Duffy wanted to meet the next day in Washington but I could not make arrangements to travel that quickly. After some discussion, we agreed to meet the morning of July 14, 1995. 8. Former Congressman Jim Moody and I met with Mr. Duffy the morning of July 14, 1995. The meeting lasted slightly less than an hour. During the first 40 minutes of the meeting, Mr. Duffy listened to our arguments in support of the application and appeared to be receptive. Near the end of the meeting, however, Mr. Duffy said that the application was being denied and that a decision would be issued later that day. Mr. Duffy said that there were two reasons for the denial: (1) the proposed gaming establishmen: would be harmful to the St. Croix Chippewas, and (2) the City Council of Hudson, the United States Congressman for the district, and other political officials were now on record against the project. 9. Later that day, on July 14, 1995, I met with Secretary Babbitt. I asked the Secretary if he would delay the release of the decision on the Tribes' application until the following Monday to allow time for the Tribes to attempt to respond to the political pressure being exerted against the application. Secretary Babbitt said that the decision could not be delayed because Presidential Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes had called the Secretary and told him that the decision had to be issued that day. 10. I had never heard of Michael Anderson, the person who signed the July 14. Neither Secretary Babbitt, nor 1995 letter denying the Tribes' application. Messrs. Duffy, Skibine or Hartman nor anyone else I spoke to ever mentioned his name. My understanding was that Ms. Ada Deer, the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, was the person who would make the decision on the Tribes' application for approval under IGRA. No one ever explained to me why Mr. Anderson rather than Ms. Deer signed the July 14, 1995 letter. EOP 064224 11. I was deeply disappointed by the decision denying the plaintiffs' application. In my over 30 years of practice of law, I had not been involved in a matter in which the merits were so strongly on the side of the parties I was representing. Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of January, 1996. Пове Нева вита Notary Public, State of Arizona OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN NELSON BURRIS vy Come Estes JUNE 1998 Paul F. Eckstein GALAXYI PLEADING USCKSTEIN AFF EOP 064225 [49] From: SCOTT KEEP 4/8/97 12:48PM (3205 bytes: 1 in) Forwarded i : Tom Hartman at -IOSIAE 3/27/97 7:34AM (2996 bytes: 1 in) To: Michael Anderson at IBIA, Heather Sibbison at -IOS, Robert Anderson at -IOS, scott keep at -DOI/SOL_HQ, DOJ/ENRD-PASSAREL at -JENRD, Edward Slagle, George Skibine Receipt Requested cc: Hilda Manuel at -IBIA Subject: Re: SOKAEGON LAWSUIT Text item 1: Text_1 Message Contents I concur. I had (and have) a long list of deficiencies for As one staff member reviewing the application for a "not Топ Reply Separator Subject: SOKAEGON LAWSUIT Author: Date: George Skibine at -IOSIAE Having now read Judge Crabb's March 19th Order, I must EXHIBIT TU - 9 [The deposition of Ann Louise Jablonski follows:] EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, DEPOSITION OF: ANN LOUISE JABLONSKI Washington, DC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1998 The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2157, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 2:10 p.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Robert Dold, Jr., Chief Investigative Counsel; William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian; Kristin Amerling, Minority Counsel; and Michael Yang, Minority Counsel. For MS. JABLONSKI: BRUCE ROSEN, ESQ. Pellino, Rosen, Mowris & Kirkhuff, P.C., S.C. 131 West Wilson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Mr. DOLD. Good morning, Ms. Jablonski. The WITNESS. Good morning. Mr. DOLD. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I appreciate and thank you for appearing here today. This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public. I will now request that the reporter place you under oath. THEREUPON, ANN LOUISE JABLONSKI, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of this deposition. My name is Bob Dold. I'm designated Majority counsel. Mike Yang is the designated Minority counsel. He's accompanied today by Kristin Amerling. Ms. Jablonski is accompanied today by Mr. Bruce Rosen. Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a court of law. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall those exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection. If you only recall part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give me your best recollection of those events or parts of conversation that you recall. Majority and Minority committee counsel will be asking you questions regarding the subject matter of this investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel is finished. If, however, there is a question that Mike has got that's pertinent to the subject matter, normally what will happen is, he will interject questions; and that's perfectly proper. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions. When they are finished, committee counsel may resume questioning. I don't anticipate Members of Congress attending today's deposition, but if they do, they will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions. Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If Minority and Majority counsels agree that the question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. |