Our cousin, 'aamokat takes a comment from on of the Pechanga Tribe's defenders of their policy of termination.
This person has frequented our blog, as do others from Pechanga. In fact, Pechanga checks our blog more often than many of our family members. Thanks for that.
“Please know, Dear Reader that civil rights have nothing to do with a tribal membership dispute. Instead, an internal tribal process governs the determination of membership. Settled law and policy have long held that tribes determine their own membership in their own forum."
YES, TRIBES HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO THEIR OWN MEMBERS ARE BUT CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT IF KEY STEPS OF THE DISENROLLMENT PROCEDURES ARE NOT FOLLOWED AND BIASED, PARTIAL PEOPLE WITH A PERSONAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE DISENROLLMENT CASES ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON DISENROLLMENT CASES.
ALSO, IF SOME FAMILIES WERE CLEARED FROM DISENROLLMENT WITH THE SAME INFORMATION IN THEIR FAMILY HISTORY THAT THE DISENROLLEES WERE DISENROLLED FOR, THIS SHOWS BIAS AGAINST THE DISENROLLED FAMILIES.
WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT FOLLOWING YOUR OWN PECHANGA CONSTITUTION?
WHICH SAYS UNDER ARTICLE V, "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL ELECTED OFFICERS OF THE BAND TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, AND ORDINANCES OF THE TEMECULA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS; AND ALSO, TO UPHOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF EACH MEMBER WITHOUT MALICE OR PREJUDICE."
All this commenter has to fall back on is sovereignty and while it is hard to prove that internal procedures were not followed in our disenrollment cases because we were denied copies of any of the official transcripts of the disenrollment hearings, we can show through the public record that families who were cleared from disenrollment had the same information we were disenrolled for in their family histories.
OP: No attorneys, no right to confront our accusers, no writing implements allowed, herded together to hear our cases. Ring a bell in history?