Monday, March 2, 2009

Guest Blogger Responds to Pechanga's Disenrollment Challenge: Part ONE

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."

"Aamokat's Response"

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?

4 comments:

cideways said...

What about when the tribe voted at a "General Meeting" to STOP disenrollments! Yet the Hunters were sill disenrolled. So when the "Tribe" does make internal decisions on their enrollments, yet the council overturns those decisions when it is contrary to their own agenda.

White Buffalo said...

"…Settled law and policy have long held that tribes determine their own membership in their own forum."
Well "Potato" the rhetoric you spew sounds like a line that was written by your lawyers in the appeal against Judge Fields ruling. Can't come up with anything new. Well then I will state what I have been asking since our disenrollment. What are you afraid of let's go to court and have the merits of our case be heard.
You may spew all the drivel you want, but until there is external oversight of issues that arise in such important matters there will never be fairness because of the one-sidedness that exists in the current policy and procedure. The way thing are now is not an example of a fair and impartial system. I believe in the tribal constitution and bylaws; however, The indiscriminate violation of bylaws should not be tolerated by the people.
For those who do not know the "Great Potato" he is a bean counting SOB that in one meeting before our disenrollment was overheard asking what the increase of per-cap checks would be with our family no longer as members. I heard it with my own ears. I did not realize what he meant until after I received my letter of decision, So "potato head" answer the questions and maybe I'll stop calling you names. Yea it was me that started calling you "Potato Head"

'aamokat said...

As O.P. points out, we were not allowed to have legal representation at any of the dienrollment proceedings and prior to our appeal hearings we received a letter from the Pechanga tribal council that said that WE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE NOTES BECAUSE WRITING IMPLEMENTS OF ANY KIND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE HEARING ROOM.

Also, as I have said, we were denied any copies of the official transcripts.

WHAT REAL COURT OF LAW WOULD DENY ONE OF THE PARTIES COPIES OF TRANSCRIPTS?

Gentle Readers, it was very hard to mount a defense without copies of transcripts.

HOW FAIR DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND TO ANY REASONABLE PERSON?

Luiseno said...

How fair do you think it was to see the faces of the very same people who had accused you, looking down on you as the ones who will be judging your case. No, I don't think we had a snowballs chance in hell to win.