Monday, August 24, 2009

California Democratic Native American Caucus AGAINST the Indian Civil Rights Act.

The Indian Civil Rights Act was designed to protect the individual Indian. Unfortunately enforcement is weak.

Almost two years ago, we wrote about the NATIVE AMERICAN CAUCUS CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY meeting in Anaheim. At that meeting they voted AGAINST due process for Indian people after impassioned pleas from Andrew Masiel Sr, and Ron Andrade.

Now in notes from their recent meeting, they want to withhold support of ACR 32

This measure would reaffirm state recognition of the sovereign status of federally recognized Indian tribes as separate and independent governmental and political communities within the United States, encourage all state agencies, when engaging in activities or developing policies affecting Native American tribal rights or trust resources, to do so in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner that is respectful of tribal
sovereignty, and encourage all state agencies to continue to reevaluate and improve the implementation of laws affecting Native American tribal rights.

Fiscal committee: yes.

WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of California is committed
to strengthening and assisting Indian tribal governments in their
development and to promoting Indian self-governance; and
WHEREAS, The Legislature supports and is committed to the
enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 U.S.C. Sec.
1301 and following), which safeguards tribal sovereignty while
simultaneously ensuring that the civil rights of Indian people are
protected; and

WHEREAS, Because the Legislature recognizes and respects tribal
customs and traditions, it is important that the state government
work to preserve tribal cultures; and

GET THIS ONE:
ACTION NEEDED: WITHHOLD support until language regarding “the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968” is removed.

What kind of group in the Democratic party DOESN'T support CIVIL RIGHTS? The NATIVE AMERICAN CAUCUS. The Exec board has members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, Andrew Masiel and Corrine Garbani. The tribe is well known to have violated their own peoples rights.

Express your displeasure here:

Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party
1401 21st Street, Suite 100,
Sacramento, CA 95814.

6 comments:

'aamokat said...

Clearly the language of the resolution recognizes the sovereignty of Indian tribes so why would the California Native American Caucus want to go on record as opposing the Indian Civil Rights Act?

Is it because the leadership of the caucus is in the palm of the hands of civil rights violators?

If these powerful gaming tribes were not violating the rights of individuals, then there would be no need to be against language in a resolution that recognizes both the sovereignty of Indian nations as well as the rights of the individual.

Pechanga claims that we the disenrolled got due process and received fair and impartial treatment.

If that is the case, then supporting a resolution that supports the Indian Civil Rights Act would not change a thing if in fact we did get due process and fair treatment.

Question to our Gentle Readers: Do you think it was fair that we the Hunter family of Pechanga didn't find out that the petition outlawing disenrollment that was passed in July 2005 by the Pechanga General Membership didn't include my family until March 2006 and just two days before we received our letters informing us we were disenrolled when it was too late to respond to the bogus ruling by the tribal council?

Does that sound like we got due process of law like Pechanga tribe claims?

Again, if our rights were not violated, then there would be no need to oppose language supporting the Indian Civil Rights Act.

WE NEED TO RETURN PECHANGA TO THE RULE OF LAW AND AWAY FROM THE LAWLESSNESS THAT NOW INFECTS OUR TRIBE AND IT APPEARS WE HAVE TO RETURN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN CAUCUS TO WHAT IS RIGHT AS WELL!

'aamokat said...

Follow up on my last post:

Was it fair that family members of enrollment committee members turned in letters and statements against my family's tribal membership but those enrollment committee members, who we had asked to step aside from ruling on our case because of bias and conflict of interest, were still allowed to rule on our disenrollment?

By the way, those enrollment committee members we had asked to be recused from ruling on our case had filed disenrollment papers against my family even before any evidence had been presented but that first challenge was disallowed as at least the 'powers that be' wanted the appearance of going through proper procedures.

Was it fair that the tribal council ruled in 2006 that the General Membership, in passing the petition outlawing disenrollment in 2005, could not interrupt or question the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment, claiming that it violated established tribal legal precedent when in fact no such legal precedent exists but that actual tribal legal precedent says just the opposite that the General Membership is in fact the final authority on membership issues?

I will again cite the tribal legal precedent of 1986 when the Murphys, who had been turned down for tribal membership by the enrollment committee, had the committee's decision overturned by a vote of the General Membership.

So if Pechanga (and other tribes doing the same thing to their people) did not violate our civil rights by not abiding by the Band's own constitution forbiding malice or prejudice against individual tribal members, then there would be no need for the leadership of the California Native American Caucus to oppose language supporting the Indian Civil Rights Act.

But the fact is we were disenrolled by kangaroo court proceedings that did not provide any fairness to us, the disenrolled, whatsoever.

WE NEED TO RETURN PECHANGA TO THE RULE OF LAW AND AWAY FROM THE LAWLESSNESS THAT NOW INFECTS OUR TRIBE AND IT APPEARS WE HAVE TO RETURN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN CAUCUS TO WHAT IS RIGHT AS WELL!

O Pechanga said...

WHEN will politicians realize that the trust responsibility of the US government to "indians" isn't just to the chiefs and chairmen?

Allen L. Lee said...

The state can't really adopt a legal position that is contradictory to the federal one regarding rights. It would be unconstitutional.

White Buffalo said...

Corrupt Rule of Law
The same is true of our case. The disenrollment committee went through the motions of hearing our argument, yet in the record of decision it was stated that M. Miranda never lived on the reservation thus disqualifying any descendants from membership. The reality of this statement was never in the original reasoning for disenrollment that was presented to the family, nor was there any way that we could defend against this allegation given that we were formaly disenrolled. You the reader decide whether this was fair and impartial. Understand that we had refuted every claim made against us with documented evidence supporting our claim. As for an impartial committee the people on the committee that brough the aligations against us held the wote. We asked to have them requested, removed, at our appeal because of bios and conflict of intrest, yet they were not in fact the vote would have been much different. This is one example of how unfair the process is at Pechanga.

'aamokat said...

In the first written enrollment application of 1978 there was a supplement page that listed ways people could prove are Temecula Pechanga people.

Among the acceptable proof was being direct descendants of Temecula Indians or direct desendants of original allottees.

Well Manuela Miranda clearly meets the requirment of being a Temecula Indian.

Ironically the descendants of Candelaria Nesecat Flores, a sibling of Manuela Miranda and the ancestor of the Mirandas still in the tribe, were cleared from disenrollment but C.N. Flores was not living at Pechanga when the reservation was created either.

In fact C.N. Flores is listed as living at the Soboba reservation, not Pechanga, for a period in the late 1890s.

So why were the descendants of C.N. Flores cleared from disenrollment when their blood relatives, the descendants of M. Miranda, were disenrolled with virtually the same famiy histories?

Could it be that it is because C.N. Flores descendant Francis Miranda, who is on the enrollment committee, sided with the CPP in disenrolling hundreds of long time tribal members in good standing including her own blood?

A clear violation of Article V of the Pechanga constitution and bylaws forbidding malice or predjudice against individual tribal members.

WE NEED TO RETURN PECHANGA TO THE RULE OF LAW AND AWAY FROM THE LAWLESSNESS THAT NOW INFECTS OUR TRIBE!