By JAMES FINK
Business First

After watching the legal battles over the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino take shape for the past three years, the Seneca Nation of Indians has decided it wants to directly enter the fray.

Lawyers representing the Seneca Nation have asked U.S. District Court Judge William Skretny to grant them a waiver of immunity, a move that makes the tribe a defendant in the complex series of legal actions concerning the downtown Buffalo casino. The Seneca Nation, which has never been directly sued by anti-casino supporters, has held amicus or "friend of the court" status.

Paper work asking for Skretny to approve the waiver has been submitted to the judge.

"It's time for the Seneca Nation to speak with its own voice," said Carol Heckman, a former federal judge and partner in the Buffalo law firm of Harter Secrest Emery. Heckman is representing the Seneca Nation in the casino lawsuit.

Heckman noted there are certain legal advantages for the Seneca Nation by offering its waiver of immunity. It provides them with a seat at the defendants table, especially if the lawsuit moves from Skretny's court to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is likely regardless of any rulings the federal judge makes.

It gives them a stronger, legal voice.

"They can be heard at the table," Heckman said. "And, not through others."

Barry Snyder Sr., Seneca Nation president, called the anti-casino lawsuit a "direct threat to the Seneca Nation of Indians."

"We take this threat most seriously and we decided it was time to step in and fight and win our own fight, rather than watching from the sidelines."

Skretny is reviewing whether the casino, which has been approved by federal officials including the National Indian Gaming Commission, was properly greenlighted.

The NIGS allowed the Seneca Nation to open the casino in July 2007. Anti-casino supporters won a series of rulings last summer, by the NIGS re-affirmed the casino as a legal operation on Jan. 20, just as President Bush was leaving office. That decision is currently being challenged including a call by former Rep. John LaFalce to have Congress investigate the circumstances and timing of the approval.

Cornelius Murray, the Albany attorney representing Citizens for a Better Buffalo - one of the anti-casino groups, said previous attempts by the Seneca Nation to waive immunity was dismissed by Skretny. He expects the same result this time.

"It is no more necessary today than it was then," Murray said.

Not so, says Heckman.

"For the (Seneca) nation, it is better to be at the table and not sitting back in the audience," Heckman said.

Senecas argue that the casino, which sits on nine acres of land along S. Park Avenue, is sovereign territory and subject only from approvals issued by the National Indian Gaming Commission.

The casino is one of three granted to the Seneca Nation under the terms of a 2002 compact the tribe signed with New York state. Seneca Gaming Corp., the nation's casino operations affiliate, runs Seneca Niagara Casino and Hotel in Niagara Falls and Seneca Allegany Casino and Hotel in Salamanca.

The interim Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino offers a Spartan gaming experience with slot machines only and some limited food and beverage service. Construction on the $333 million permanent Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino, which started in October 2007, was halted last August because of country's financial meltdown. Officials said construction will continue when the economy improves.

The casino is expected to create 1,000 jobs during its construction period - roughly 30 months and another 1,000 permanent jobs. Since 2002, Seneca Gaming Corp. has created more than 4,000 permanent jobs.

The decision to halt the casino construction project came about 24 hours after Skretny re-affirmed his decision that the gaming center's approval was arbitrary and capricious.

Heckman defended the Jan. 20 NIGC ruling, that critics said was an eleventh hour decision by the Bush administration just before the former president left office, was a sound one.

"The ruling speaks for itself," she said. "It was scholarly and legally correct."