request by them for the trial court to declare what was the meaning of certain sections of the privacy contract in particular the section i believe it's ten point three which establishes supposedly a worker's compensation system for all employees of rival casinos and it allows the tribes to either one participate in the state system which is  features that would be part of the state system if if they had developed the defer to the relief of asking for an interpretation that what does that mean a comparable system it's obviously a rather poor choice of words meant by section ten point eight which was the original environmental protection section of the tribal stay compact in which the tribes are bound to use a good faith effort mitigate all off site impacts adverse impacts they were asking the citizens of kenya's valley we're asking for some interpretation of what that means because in their view as alleged in the complaint the tribe involved there was making no effort at all in it didn't take anyone to figure out that wasn't a good faith effort but in any case they were asking some guidelines from the trial judge as to what that meant well let me just to stop bothering me you know you've got an indian tribe here that's involved and apparently according to rule ground issue i didn't address it directly and just isn't that fatal to your case doesn't make it an easy case the tragic indispensable part of your involving the tribe and you can't join them because they're immune and that's the end of it according to american greyhound i understand with the case says that that's not the issue here the issue here is all strictly state court issues there are no federal issues here the tribe is not a necessary or indispensable party why not if you're trying to you're trying to accomplish something that impacts upon the behavior of the tribe ar trying to do what i think ever an interest in operating the way it is or i'm sure they have no system no but i mean an interest in coming into court where they can come into court their right to come in a can join a think they joined in hotel restaurant employees  court case or did you see i must hear you say court issues purely state court issues you don't have one of them by certain ages and they do not have a direct impact on the tribe to have to let the let me back up and take the step by step in a way that i can understand this case was we're relying on the laws of the state of california which established the election laws which established by constitution what the rights of injured workers are hold on and the question is is this contract lawfully in effect under state law jurisdiction does rule nineteen apply forty to fifty thousand employees of casino we're talking about perhaps hundreds of thousands of residents of communities that are impacted by these casinos and have no environmental protection because the governor is not even enforcing the ones that are in the existing contracts and i understand the newer contacts are better written that they have more clear language and perhaps would be more enforceable assuming again the governor should use force but the point is that the state law questions just like the election code question whether it was a proper election but it's the public interest exception did not take the greyhound racing case out of rule nineteen how how would you do it here this is say the public interest not directly affected i ask you to tell me how the public interest is affected differentially in this case compared to the greyhound racing case but i think it's a much greater impact on the public i mean we're talking here about the tort laws of the state of california the compact providing that all tort claims will be resolved promptly and fairly again that's a question that needs to be what does that mean probably unfairly granted they have to have five million dollars of insurance but if there's no means of enforcing probably in fairly then as is the case and many many people are being injured in casinos and indian businesses who have no recourse whatsoever they can't sue themselves because of sovereign immunity all i can think governor either you do something about this you compel the tribe to fairly and promptly resolve these claims or you take the steps provided in that compact section eleven point two and you threaten them with terminations that if they don't comply that's the only protection the people of us pay you know and it's very skillfully used by the attorney general they remove it saying oh well the tribes are necessary you can't join in because the s effect which when balanced with the public interest involved here in protecting the port victims the workers of this state in the communities who have to suffer the adverse impacts of these now making pacino's that are going up with the public interest exception clearly apply over travel gaining activities they wrote was enacted in direct response to an outcry from the states about their concerns for crime on indian reservations in connection with indian gaming congress passed that statute for  and when we look at the nine hundred ninety nine contacts the first thing that jumps out with respect to the standing question is that is a section fifteen point one of the ninety nine contacts denies that third parties have any authority under the contacts the loss in front of  i'm screen on time but yes you first of all i'm sure that's not what cabazon said at all but council stated that it had no regulatory authority over gambling what cameras on said was well if you have a form of gambling that you're allowing now and you're simply regulating it next case it was card rooms which were regulated by local governments and bingo which was permitted all over the state but for charitable purposes and not high stakes so what the court said was well if you have that otherwise and tr governments have some government authority like you do just like the city of palm springs or whatever then the tribe should be able to have been going card rooms too and they can regulate how they see fit so they didn't say they don't have regulatory power over again when they said if you have a category of gambling this regulatory and not prohibitory which is the opposite like craps and blackjack and so on then you can have the regulatory ones on tribal ground just like they do out there in the real world that notwithstanding let's get into the question of counsel for the government reminds us that there's a section of the contract that excludes a private right of action and relegate the government to government how do you get around that w california has a long standing history of allowing your citizens to take their government to task when they don't do their duty but the compact here says there's no private right of action but i'm saying that the compact cannot be used to waive the right clearly congress in vision that the people would be protected by allowing a compact to exist between tribes otherwise sovereign and the states and then the states in the compact process could put all the laws and regulations that they thought should apply to protect their citizens into the terms of the compact that would be the protection of the citizens so if that's the protection of the citizens and it's done as in its case in tort law and worker's comp and so on then it's not being carried out by the governor don't the citizens have a right to sue their governor and say listen these were put in here for our protection you want to hear that and i question i know what your answer is in fact a great deal but i'm just saying i cannot imagine i cannot imagine but they don't have they don't have because if they come here and do business under the foreign commerce act of a all the same laws any other business does pay all thing tax anyone else that's a pay and so on but in this particular case i think clearly the public right elations follows the rule though because everything becomes public and the way you describe it everything is public personas i don't know if you live anywhere near an indian casino and drive the roads or so for the around the casinos or you suffer the increases  would be far enough away to be not impacted by indian casinos one didn't work there one didn't go there is a patron there was enough to put up with all the traffic and noise in crime and things to come with it around you so there it doesn't affect everybody thought i'm saying if i sued same argument but five was unconstitutional the tribes were at joint and the state supreme court had no difficulty reaching a decision in that case the proposition five was unconstitutional even though it impacted the tribes they had to go back and get a new  proposition one eighty six months later are you now asking us to declare the compact your own constitution well i think privately my own views there are at least in part i mean the state constitution says here's what happens if you're working in a business in california inferring that by voting in favor of proposition one a this somehow the legislature having ratified these contracts previously is in effect mending article fourteen section four of the constitution then you have another problem that gets back to the election law issues you can have two amendments of the constitution one hidden by voting in favor one day which isn't retroactively in effect modifying another section of the constitution to allow an indian tribe to decide what kind of rights you should have if you're in your work you have a problem with that argument is in part that your charge is that the california supreme court ignored our federal rule