Monday, August 31, 2009

Weekend Protests of TRACY AVILA Led Robinson Rancheria Evictions and Disenrollments

ELIZABETH LARSON of Lake County News continues her fine reporting on disenrollment issues in California. Here's one on the Robinson Rancheria's evictions:

NICE – Tensions between the Robinson Rancheria Citizens Business Council and a group of tribal members the council is trying to remove from tribal membership is continuing to mount, and culminated in another protest at the casino's entrance on Saturday.

The Saturday rally is in response to a round of evictions under way by the tribe's housing committee.

About 30 people carried signs and walked along the edge of Highway 20 at Robinson's entrance. Sign slogans ranged from “Robinson Rancheria court equals housing eviction,” “Illegal housing evictions and fraud,” “Stop tribal council fraud,” “Lies, cheat, steal, “Honk for justice,” “Tribal rights denied,” “Nepotism and greed” and “My grandma is being evicted after 21 years living here.”

Over the three hours the group protested Saturday, they received numerous honks and gestures of support from passersby. One couple from out of the area stopped by to ask about the protest and what was happening.

Last December, following months of controversy over a disputed election, the Robinson Rancheria Citizens Business Council – headed by Tribal Chair Tracey Avila – passed disenrollment resolutions on 63 tribal members, according to recently released documents.

The council also disenrolled an additional three tribal members for lack of blood quantum – the amount of blood a person is supposed to have to quality for tribal membership.

Before taking the disenrollment votes on those 66 tribal members, the council also unanimously voted to disenroll Marie Boggs Quitiquit, who had by that time been dead for several years. The votes to disenroll her children and grandchildren, part of the large Quitiquit family totaling more than 30 members, then followed.

Marie Quitiquit's daughter, Wanda Quitiquit, is currently leading the disenrollment appeal effort to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has granted numerous delays in the process since the start of the year. Next month, the final appeals are due, and a BIA decision on whether the disenrollments were valid is expected to take place.

A previous protest by those who were disenrolled by the council and those who supported the disenrollees' case was held in front of the casino on Jan. 17, as Lake County News has reported.

That same month, the tribe's housing committee began efforts to evict several of those whose names were on the disenrollment list from homes built on the rancheria with federal Housing and Urban Development funds.

HUD officials have confirmed to Lake County News that they issued findings in February that found the tribe was not in compliance with the guidelines of its federal housing grants. The tribe could be forced to repay its grants – the amount was not disclosed – it it refuses to take corrective actions.

Read the rest of the story HERE


Allen L. Lee said...

"the council also unanimously voted to disenroll Marie Boggs Quitiquit, who had by that time been dead for several years. The votes to disenroll her children and grandchildren, part of the large Quitiquit family totaling more than 30 members, then followed."

I think everybody on this blog knows how I feel about the preceeding quote.

'aamokat said...

That is what Pechanga did to me and my family. They disenrolled our ancestor Paulina Hunter, who died in 1899, so all of her direct descendants over 90 of us and all of their immediate families, are now disenrolled.

But from what I have read regarding the Quitiquits of the Robinson Rancheria, the evidence is in favor of the Quitiquits retaining their membership.

That has been the problem in this disenrollment age that in case after case, in tribe after tribe, credible evidence in favor of the disenrollees is ignored by the 'powers that be' and due process is not afforded the defendants.

There has to be a way to reconcile the rights of the individuals with the sovereignty of their respective tribes and their right to determine their own membership.

No surprise that the California assembly resolution, ACR 32, affirming the sovereignty of Indian nations within its borders but also supporting the ICRA rights of the individual is opposed by the leadership of the state Native American Caucus because of the language supporting the ICRA when the Caucus leadership is heavily influenced by some of the very tribes who have led the charge in violating the rights of their own tribal members.

'aamokat said...

Mr. Lee, you have implied that if tribes have the right of determining their own membership without outside intervention, then individuals would not be covered by the ICRA.

But if that is the case, then why would the leadership of the state Native American Caucus, who are heavily influenced by tribes who have violated the rights of their members, be opposed to the language in support of the ICRA in ACR 32?

Because if the ICRA doesn't cover individuals regarding membership issues it would not matter if the language was in ACR 32 or not.

Allen L. Lee said...

I will talk to you a little more later, got to hit the road, but that is exactly what Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez is saying.

Allen L. Lee said...

To continue,
A little on Snoqualmie:

“…The judge was careful not to tread into areas the courts have long regarded as the sole purview of tribes, as sovereign nations. The only issue the court ruled on directly was whether the banished in this instance were properly notified and had a chance to represent themselves before their accusers. …
…For now, members such as Sweet, whose enrollment was not challenged, have some benefits as members reinstated. But they still can't go on tribal lands or participate in tribal events. Tribal elections, for instance, will be held by their tribe in a few days, and despite the ruling, the banished can't attend. “
Byline: Lynda V. Mapes; Seattle Times staff reporter'+rights+violated%2c+judge...-a0199035628

The U.S. can not dictate to recognized tribes who may or may not be members, not even with ICRA considered, based on Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez. The Snoqualmie case does not overturn Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez, doesn't even threaten it. By the same token tribes can not dictate to the U.S. who it may choose to recognize as legitimate tribes.
That is the essence of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma conflict with the United Keetowah Band of Cherokees right now that Echohawk has addressed.
I do understand the point of some Indians not wanting non-Indians taking over their tribes and by default destroying their heritage, but I think there are more reliable ways to guarantee a heritage other than racial parameters, or worse, bloodline reviews. Tribes could simply mandate cultural adherence or risk banishment, shunning or dis-enrollment, regardless of bloodline heritage.
If I were adopted into a tribe and I lived the tribal way, my children were taught and lived the tribal way, but my grandchildren’s generation decided that my bloodline was inadequate and removed my grandchildren from the tribe, I would consider that dis-honorable.
An alternative? The U.S. could begin to recognize every dis-enrolled group as a splinter tribe.
There is no set limit as to how many tribes the U.S. can recognize.
It would be a historical anomaly easily explained and justified by the advent of Casinos. Instead of 500+ tribes there may be 1000+ tribes recognized. The main point is a right to self-government that the dis-enrolled are being deprived of.
We can try that route or we can try the route were the U.S. seeks some accountability from established tribes for basic human rights violations. Perhaps both routes are necessary to get results since tribes are not states and are not subject to the same federal Civil Rights regulations that states are.
As for racial isolationists, including Black supremacist, anyone who doesn’t want to live with me is more than welcome to keep their distance, and I will do the same. If they can live without me, they can die without me, and I need show no concern one way or the other for their welfare, just my own.

Anonymous said...

As we have stated several times, we support the tribes right to determine memberships. What we do not agree on, is tribes not following tribal laws to do so. Pechanga in particular has and continues to violated several tribal laws. The tribe voted in 2005 to end the disenrollment procedures, period end of story. The tribal council tainted by a corrupt faction of the tribe, with ties to a splinter group from the 80's voted outside the will of the people to allow a long standing family to be disenrolled anyways in 2006. An illegal moritorium that has blocked 100's of people from participating in tribal affairs. The Apish-Miranda family was disenrolled even when their extended family that is still enrolled shared similar stories in their family line. The most blatent violations is unfair and impartial handling of enrollment issues by people who share family lines with the splinter group of the 80's both on the enrollment committee and tribal council. This will be exposed, and someone is going to jail!

Allen L. Lee said...

I can assure you that no tribal member anywhere under U.S. jurisdiction is going to jail for dis-enrolling anyone.
The feds not only approve of blood requirements for tribes, but have fostered it with the intent of controlling the recipients of tribal benefits to lineal descendants of people they robbed of their natural resources.
If states did the same thing they would be in violation of a citizens federal Civil Rights.
Congress with their plenary power over tribes, can determine tribal membership, but I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the Dawes Commission from Congress in this era. Diane Watson has proposed a severing of relations with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until they adhere to the terms of the treaty. She has not made any intimation that Congress should re-instate the Freedmen Descendants into the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma tribe against the tribes wishes.
So who will enforce "fair and impartial" in the tribes? You mentioned that the council voted outside the will of the Pechanga people, the courts answer was:

"...Insofar as plaintiffs sue for violations of “Pechanga Band Law,” it is for the Band to determine what that law is and whether or not it has been violated. "
What is the will of the Pechanga people? Are they or were they held hostage and powerless to exercise the will of a majority? That's something the federal government can intervene on.
What external authority can be exercised?
"...As we will discuss further, tribes have been
given broad power to order their own affairs without regard for Eurocentric mores. To
the extent that Congress has not chosen to provide an effective external means of
enforcement for the rights of tribal members, the omission is for Congress to reconsider if and when it chooses..."
If the federal government would cease it's role in blood disqualifications in tribes and sanction tribes that disqualify recognized members based on lineal descent or reduced blood quantum, I think that would be a great help for the dis-enrolled. Of course, if you believe it is acceptable for tribes to do lineal descent and blood quantum disqualifications, than the federal government has no place to determine which ones are fair and impartial, and which ones aren't.
It is unconstitutional to do this to a U.S. citizen, but loss of tribal membership has no bearing on the tribal members U.S. citizenship.
I still think it is a basic human rights violation to do such a thing, even for tribes, and with the U.S. being conscious of the ills of forced assimilation, the default of American citizenship is no excuse for the U.S. to support or foster such activity. Keeping people out with no prior legal standing is one thing, removing fully enfranchised and recognized people with legal standing is a whole different issue if we are talking about a tribes right to determine their membership. Tribes have the right to do both, but the latter requires more just cause then the former.
You mentioned extended family members that are still enrolled.
There are also Cherokee Freedmen descendants who are still enrolled, they just happen to have an Indian ancestor as well on the by-blood section of the Dawes Rolls. So I am curious as to what extenuating circumstance separates their qualifications from yours. Are they or have they been inter-married to accepted tribal members in the tribes history?

'aamokat said...

Allen Lee said, "What is the will of the Pechanga people? Are they or were they held hostage and powerless to exercise the will of a majority? That's something the federal government can intervene on."

Yes, the will of the Pechanga people, passed into law on July 17, 2005 by a majority vote of the General Membership, was that as of the date June 19, 2005 the disenrollment procedures no longer existed as a part of tribal law and that everyone who was a tribal member as of that date would remain a tribal member but we, the Hunters, were disenrolled on March 16, 2006 anyway

The tribal council claimed tribal legal precedent though on March 14, 2006 that the enrollment committee was the final authority on enrollment issues, both enrollment and disenrollment, but the council ignored the fact that on April 20, 1986 the General Membership had voted to overrule the enrollment committee's decision to not enroll the Murphys, which is the only tribal legal precedent on this subject.

Allen Lee said, "You mentioned extended family members that are still enrolled.

So I am curious as to what extenuating circumstance separates their qualifications from yours. Are they or have they been inter-married to accepted tribal members in the tribes history?"

What the poster was referring to is that the Manuela Miranda descendants were disenrolled in 2004 because the enrollment committee claimed that because M. Miranda was not living at Pechanga during the historical period of when the reservation was established, it justified her descendants disenrollment.

However, the descendants of her sibling, Candarlaria Nesecat Flores, were cleared from disenrollment with virtually the same family history even though C.N. Flores was also not living at Pechanga during the same historical period.

A violation of Article V of the Pechanga Constitution and Bylaws that forbids malice or predjudice against invidual tribal members.

So again the dilemma is how can anyone make the Pechanga government follow the Band's own constitution and bylaws if they choose not to do so?

'aamokat said...

Add on to my last post:

In the case of my family, the enrollment committee claimed in its ruling that kicked us out of the tribe that because a member of our extended family line put San Luis Rey on a 1928 application for enrollment as a California Indian, that our true tribal identity is the San Luis Rey Tribe.

Never mind that others from our extended family put Pechanga on their 1928 applications.

What is absurd is that members of other family lines not related to us who are current tribal members also put San Luis Rey on their 1928applications including members of the Masiel/Basquez and C.N. Flores families, both of whom were cleared from disenrollment!

By the way, people from the Masiel/Basquez and C.N. Flores families held the deciding votes on the enrollment committee that disenrolled us.

So why were we disenrolled for having the same information in our family history that people who voted us out of the tribe have in their family histories?

Because if we really aren't true Pechangas, then neither are they and neither are a lot of other people who are current tribal members.

Another violation of Article V of the Band's constitution and bylaws forbidding malice or predjudice against individual tribal members.

Again, how do we get the Pechanga government to follow their own constitution and bylaws if they choose not to do so?

Allen L. Lee said...

Thanks 'aamokat for the answer.
That San Luis Rey designation only stipulates an area the San Luis Rey Mission claimed for converting Indians. Missionization had no role in forming tribes. Their goal was Catholic assimilation, not tribal identity. If we are going to penalize every family line that was impacted by some form of Euro-American assimilation, then again I say, very few are immune from disqualification. I think the official name is the "Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians." The Luiseno title would disqualify everyone if San Luis Rey was a disqualifier. A few notes from my files:

"As the court observed, the Secretary “ ‘is charged not only with the duty to protect the
rights of the tribe, but also the rights of individual members. And the duty to protect these rights
is the same whether the infringement is by non-members or members of the tribe.’ ” Seminole
Nation, 223 F. Supp. 2d at 137 (quoting Milam v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 10 ILR 3013, 3015
(D.D.C. Dec. 23, 1982)).
Congress, therefore, can assert its power over the Reservation whenever it wishes. For example, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act in 1885, which asserted federal jurisdiction over murder and other crimes. The act has subsequently been amended and supplemented with other laws several times"
"Following the referendum vote to remove the black Seminoles from tribal rolls, the Interior Department reviewed the action and deemed the disenrollments illegal. Interior said it would not recognize any tribal government that did not include the black Seminoles who have been allowed to serve on past tribal councils."

I posted these excerpts because to answer your question:
"Again, how do we get the Pechanga government to follow their own constitution and bylaws if they choose not to do so?" The Secretary of the Interior and the Asst Sec. head of the BIA can refuse to recognize any tribal government that does not follow it’s own laws.
Congress can go even further and can exercise limited authority on who can be considered a tribal member.
The first course of sovereign action is that tribes, through its majority will enforce its own laws. The second course in my mind is that the federal government refuse to condone or support tribal governments that violate basic human rights or the will of the tribal majority.
In your case, and I suspect in many cases of disenrolled Native peoples, you have air-tight proof of continued self-governance since 1882, it's intermittence subject to forced migration and assimilation, plus documented lineal evidence from a renown anthropologist.
Those two criteria are virtual guarantees for federal recognition as a tribe. The dis-enrolled and the moratorium people may find a much more satisfying route in being recognized as independent of the current Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. If you prefer re-instatement, than I think course one and two are the best options. The right of tribes to determine membership, which some of your supporters acknowledge and also support, would be sorely compromised if Congress used it’s authority to determine membership for tribes. If the feds were faced with an either/or situation with the dis-enrolled, being that either they support the re-instatement of wrongfully dis-enrolled people, or recognize the wrongfully dis-enrolled as independent tribes, then I think they will take action in Congress.
As per this article, the feds challenging the grant status and possible re-payment is the correct form of refusing to condone or support such actions.

Allen L. Lee said...

I wanted to include this excerpt in my previous post, but I couldn't find my citation link.
It is germaine to my position about majority will and BIA recognition.

“United States District Court,District of Columbia.
USA, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 05-0739(JR).
March 31, 2006

…3. Analysis…

…The IRA charges the Secretary, broadly, with supervising tribal elections and ensuring their fundamental integrity, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Babbitt, 107 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.1997), and sections of the IRA require that tribal actions reflect the will of a majority of the tribal community-whether or not they choose to organize under the IRA procedures. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 476(a)(1), 478. The fair and full participation of tribal members is critical to the legitimacy of any constitutional reform. Morris v. Watt, 640 F.2d 404, 415 (D.C.Cir.1981). A judge of this court has chastised the Department of the Interior when it was “derelict in [its] responsibility to ensure that the Tribe make its own determination about its government consistent with the will of the Tribe.” Ransom v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 141, 153 (D.D.C.1999)….
…In plaintiffs' submission, subsection 476(h) was added to free Indian tribes from the onerous organization requirements BIA had put in place to implement § 476(a)-(g). BIA's response, however, is that while subsection 476(h) does give Indian tribes more procedural flexibility, it does not relieve BIA of the duty to ensure that the interests of all tribe members are protected during organization and that governing documents reflect the will of a majority of the Tribe's members. BIA thus defends its refusal to recognize the California Valley Miwok Tribe as an organized tribe on the ground that the Tribe has failed to take necessary steps to protect the interests of its potential members. Dkt. # 15-1 at 28.…
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, the plaintiffs' motion to file a second supplemental complaint [Dkt. # 34] and motion for preliminary injunction [Dkt. # 29] are denied. Defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 15] is granted. The case is dismissed."

'aamokat said...

Mr. Lee, interesting but it appears your last post refers to forming governments and drafting constitutions not governments that have already been formed that already have constitutions so what about tribes that are established?

Like I have said, our problem stems from the fact that some families who were cleared from disenrollment have information in their family histories that was used against the disenrolled to justify disenrollment.

Also, in what you have coined Pechanga's Murphy's law, the Murphys had the decision by the enrollment committee not to enroll them overruled by a vote of the General Membership in 1986.

But in 2006 the tribal council stated in a letter to the General Membership that the General Membership could not question or interrupt the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment so that is why we, the Hunters, were not included in the 2005 law that outlawed disenrollment.

Article V of the Pechanga constitution and bylaws states the following:


So does the information you posted pertain to this?

As malice and predjudice were used against us the disenrolled to kick us out of the tribe.

Allen L. Lee said...

Tribes that are established do not have to have constitutional forms of government. That is the main conflict with adjudicating tribal laws in federal or state courts.
Whether the tribal government is constitutional or not, the BIA rely's on the majority will to determine if a tribal government is functioning in an official capacity.
The following excerpt regarding the historic “Three Chief System” of the Mohawk I think addresses this issue.

"...As you are aware, the BIA has been specifically instructed by the Federal courts to conduct a review of the facts surrounding the 1995 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s constitution referendum, including the question of whether or not the 51% requirement had been reached, the validity of the Tribal Court and the will of the people relative to community sentiment for the constitution. These will be the only core issues to be reviewed and decided.299..."

and regarding land:

"Extreme fractionation limits economic development in several ways. For example, without consent from a majority of the owners, Indian trust land cannot be leased."

and finally:
"...In addition, the federal government failed to obtain the actual consent of the tribes themselves, Three signatures fell far short of requisite consent of a majority of our members as our tribal membership consists of the designees--Indians of Tomales, Bodega, Marshall, and Sebastopol—for whom the Graton Rancheria was established. ... it is obvious that the BIA acted illegally in failing to obtain the consent of the majority of our members. "
I think it clear that majority will and consent guides all facets of government to government relations between the feds and tribes, not just constitutional ones.
The sectioned you placed in bold print deserves address.
As I mentioned earlier that section is clearly tribal law.
Tribes can have many forms of government that aren't "Republics,"
by definition, and it would be unjust to have the laws of say a Seven Clan government or a Three Chief Government upheld or struck down by a court of a "Republic." Those tribes that do have "Republic' forms of government do so at the will of their majorities, not at the behest of the federal government.
If the general membership felt that it's will was usurped in any way by a governing body than I think the general membership should collectively petition the BIA and Congress, advising them not to recognize any acts that their government has made or may make without their consent. In the meantime, the general membership must be making all reasonable attempts to hold tribal members accountable for violating tribal law, including governing officials. The key is to have a majority of the tribal members stand with you. In the case of minority abuse in a tribe, proving the tribal government acted outside it's scope of authority and asserting basic human rights principles might suffice. As you know I believe the basic human rights principles applies to tribes as well as Nation/States. Even if it is legitimate by majority rule, it might warrant sanctions based on minority rights violations.

Allen L. Lee said...

From a quote by 'aamokat:

"...Yes, the will of the Pechanga people, passed into law on July 17, 2005 by a majority vote of the General Membership, was that as of the date June 19, 2005 the disenrollment procedures no longer existed as a part of tribal law and that everyone who was a tribal member as of that date would remain a tribal member but we, the Hunters, were disenrolled on March 16, 2006 anyway"
If I were to look for the most egregious violation of due process and ICRA, this is where I would start
If you and your attorney agree to such a thing, I could envision invoking the Snoqualmie precedent to insist on re-instatement, the same as the Snoqualmie's were until due process was achieved.
You have little grounds for anything that was previously presented to the courts, though.
I think the Snoqualmie ICRA precedent has to be seized on while it is fresh.
You and your attorney would have to way the legal merits.

t'eetilawuncha! said...

The one constant is that this matter has Congress attention now. Add on that Congress introduced IGRA to benefit all Indians in the communities that started gaming. The billions of dollars generated from gaming have fueled tribal corruption and Congress is taking notice. Combine IGRA and ICRA and they are intertwined. Why would a tribal government establish a constitution or bylaws, if they did not have to? To protect the integrity of the tribe from the plenary powers of the outside forces that surrounds them. Is it ironic that tribes such as Pechanga established a disenrollment procedure the same year that IGRA was introduced by Congress in 1988? Why develop a procedure if tribes already have the right to self determination and the right to define its membership?

Suing the BIA over the matter at Pechanga is on the drawing board also. This membership battle was settled by the BIA back in the 80’s and has resurfaced again after IGRA. Pechanga has both a Constitution and Bylaws on file at the BIA, why do they need to follow it?

Again the good Pechanga people do what is right and help bring this to an end. It’s not too late, until it’s too late.

Anonymous said...

Its funny how Allen Lee always seems to side with the thinks white man speaks with forked tongue!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Allen L. Lee said...

I can assure you that no tribal member anywhere under U.S. jurisdiction is going to jail for dis-enrolling anyone.

There is some great investigations on Embezzlement. Skimming on trust money for rightful heirs is one crime that is being looked at.

Allen L. Lee said...

To Anonymous, Of course I can't tell whether I am talking to one or two anonymous's, so to the first one I say:
Ignorance is usually a self afflicting malady, like drug abuse, so I won't waste the time trying to explain to you how wrong you are until I see some effort on your part of self correction. I'll just enjoy your ignorance for my recreation.
Anonymous #2
Embezzlement is a crime, dis-enrolling someone from an Indian tribe is not a crime. If the aftermath of the dis-enrollments was embezzlement or the original plan of embezzlement required dis-enrollment, the dis-enrollment itself would not be illegal, only the embezzlement.
By your logic, NASDAQ is illegal because Madoff committed fraud.
Fraud is illegal, stock trading isn't.
If a tribal member goes to jail for committing a crime, so be it. Just be clear about what is and isn't a crime.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lee,

We were making sure our gentle readers understand what types of crime/s are being looked at. This is just one case. Defrauding people is another. Defraudinfg the government with phony documents is another. Defrauding governments for Federal funds is another. I wont be able to post them all, as I like to keep it short and sweet, for our gentle readers.

Anonymous said...

We are sure you can look through all this and see the crimes being committed. On the surface it looks like disenrollments/moritoriums. Dig deeper and it is rackateering and embezzlement along with fraud. All of this will be exposed, and someone better have some good answers.

'aamokat said...

I think Allen Lee tries to bring an objective look into what is happening in Indian country while we, who have been disenrolled or denied membership in our tribes, tend to look at things subjectively as it is happening to us.

Sometimes I might not agree with some of his conclusions but I welcome his input as he does come up with some good ideas and if we are right in our cause, and we are, then we can handle any questions about our issues that someone can bring up.

But even if Mr. Lee seems critical of us sometimes, I do believe he is on the side of right and that he is for us and not against us.

t'eetilawuncha! said...

I totally agree with you cousin. Even the case law he brings is objective. One thing we all know is case law is a reference point and is subject to interpretation. Roe V. Wade is one such example. Just because there is case law, it does no mean it can't be overturned.

“The U.S. can not dictate to recognized tribes who may or may not be members, not even with ICRA considered, based on Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez.”

The factor that will be looked at from this case law is did Pechanga follow it’s custom and tradition while disenrolling over 300 people, and placing an illegal moratorium on new members. Santa Clara Pueblo followed its custom and tradition and that is why this case law came about. Pechanga however, has fallen short of this on many levels.

Why does Pechanga have a constitution or bylaws?

Good Pechanga people, please help this come to an end.

Allen L. Lee said...

If you can prove that the dis-enrollments were based on fraud, (slander,libel, intent to embezzle,etc), then I could see a possible re-instatement by a federal court back into the tribe based on the Snoqualmie precedent and ICRA rules of due process. However, I wouldn't see such a re-instatement based on Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez and ICRA, and that is what has guided the Federal courts up until Snoqualmie. As of now, no higher federal court has said overturned or reversed the lower court order, so it still stands. A federal court has made a determination about due process based on tribal law and ICRA in contrast to Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez. I still think it is a huge event, but there have been no follow up cases.
The bottom line is that dis-enrollment still wouldn't be illegal, the fraud, embezzlement, slander, libel, etc., would be.
I just think that chasing phantoms and shadows such as crimes that don't exist are a waste of time. It gives the people we seek justice from the opportunity to make the real issues more elusive by using your phantoms and shadows to hide their misdeeds.
Even with a direct target in sight, you can't under-estimate the political or legal cunning of those you seek redress from. The Eloise Cobell case is probably the best example for me.
Racketeering, embezzlement and fraud, why do those terms sound so appropo with the word Casino?
Not against the Casinos, and I'm happy for any Native person that can relieve themselves of poverty, especially on their own terms. I'm just saying they are crimes that have been endemic to that business and need to be monitored more closely.
"aamokat, I'm still for you and your right to belong and be recognized as a Pechanga. The evidence speaks for itself. There are no phantoms or shadows being chased in your regard.

Anonymous said...

I think the only resolve is pressure on congress. They may not be able to reverse martinez, but they can reverse themselves and cut off funding to tribes engaging in civil illegalities. Back in the day my great-great grandmother used to tell me it took an act of congess to kick someone out of their tribe. Martinez was a big win with the tribes, back then it was supposed to protect us from the BIA approving applications of non-ndns to be enrolled in our tribes, and boy-oh-boy they must have seen this coming n with a big laugh out loud! We are truly our own worst enemy, and all because of a handful of greedy tribes. I hope congress sets federal guidelines on tribal enrollments and establishes a loss of federal recognigition to the tribes that are guilty of this type of genocide.

Anonymous said...

paulina hunter was WHITE PERSON from the east coast, her parents were not from Pechanga.. but worked for the man to WATCH THE INDIANS!!!

look up how many HUNTERS come from the east coast. and what INDIAN would have the last name hunter,, that it funny... hunter is an ENGLISH word, or name!

'aamokat said...

Anonymous harasser, you are a liar but worst of all you know what you are saying is not true.

You are just trying to get us to give up our cause and that is not going to happen.

There is no evidence of Paulina Hunter being from the east coast let alone that she wasn't an Indian.

All sides, who have reviewed the facts, agree that she was a Luiseno Indian from California.

Where they differ is whether she was Pechanga or not.

Don't you think that if there was any proof to our family not even being Indians that the enrollment committee would have used that to justify disenrolling us?

Some members of the CPP tried to claim that Paulina wasn't from here and not even an Indian so the committee was aware of this idea but they didn't use this bogus evidence against us as it is flat out not true.

Pechanga elder Antonio Ashman, called a vaunted (much praised) person on the Pechanga tribe's own official Web site, said in a notarized statement when asked, "do you remember Paulina Hunter as a member of the Band?" His reply was; "yes, I knew her as such."

Pechanga elder Dolores Tortuga in the 1915 probate hearings for Paulina's Pechanga Indian allotment responded to the court examiner's question of, "were you acquainted with the deseased Pechanga Indian allottee Paulina Hunter?" By saying; "yes, I knew her as a neighbor when WE PECHANGA INDIANS lived on the Pauba Ranch near Temecula, Ca."

Also, all sides agree, including those who voted to disenroll us, that Paulina was given a land patent as a Temecula Indian from the U.S. government in the 1890s.

So I have presented legal evidence in our support so Anonymous, present some evidence that can prove what you are saying and don't try that Ohio nonsense again as that has been refuted already and, as I said, was not even used by a biased enrollment committee who wanted us out of the tribe.

P.S. and don't try to say that the Pechanga elders such as Dolores Tortuga were just saying Paulina was their neighbor as it is clear that Paulina was included in the inclusive "WE PECHANGA INDIANS."