Thursday, April 29, 2010

Eastern Cherokee Claim Pechanga AGAIN looking at Disenrollment AND Intimates Land Grab from Terminated People

The Eastern Cherokee are looking to terminate members. And they are looking at taking back land from the disenrollees, according to the Smokey Mountain News.

During committee meetings last month, tribal council members considered the possibility of taking land back from disenrolled members and asked their legal team whether they would have to provide compensation for it.

EBCI Attorney General Annette Tarnawsky said the Pechanga Tribe in California and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan are in the midst of similar enrollment verification proceedings, but neither has used the enrollment audits to expel people from their reservations or to repossess land.

We told the US Appeals Court that Pechanga would continue to do this dastardly thing and now, with more banishments, lack of due process, WHY would anyone support them?



The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians,are well known for terminating Indians from their rightful place in the tribe. Since the advent of casino gaming Pechanga's disenrollment of 300 human beings from the tribe is second only to the Picayune Rancheria (over 500)in the termination of Native Americans in CA.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I found more information on my ancesters dora dean Brannan her father is enrolled on guillion miller roll from Eastern Band Samuel R.Brannan I was so excited to know I am Cherokee just like Grandma told me but my heart hurts at the thought that my people will go through what I have seen with the Pechanga band My thoughts and prayers are with all. polysqwalis

creeper said...

The Cherokees mentioned in the above article may have been given ASSIGNMENTS, which is land given by the tribal council to a tribal member, which is different from
TRUST LAND given by the government and signed by the President of the United States. The tribal council
has the power to take assigned land back, like they did in Ca.
to Santa Rosa and Jamul members who
where disenrolled.

Anonymous said...

The non-members removed from the tribal roll of Pechanga have no standing as Pechanga tribal members, despite their claims otherwise. Yes, these non-members may have Indian ancestry, but it does not associate them with Pechanga. By asserting or implying otherwise, these non-members delude themselves and mislead others.

Allen L. Lee said...

Under the rules of rights of indigenous peoples, yes they would have to compensate the dis-enrolled for the loss of their tribally assigned land, if we approach the tribe as a distinct sovereign from the u.S.
But before they actually compensate them for the loss, and that loss could be something other than a monetary value, they should be required to prove that they had to take the land for some greater good of the collective, the same as states do when they enact emminant domain on private property.

"1994/45. Draft United Nations declaration on the rights of
indigenous peoples
Article 10
...Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return. "
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.SUB.2.RES.1994.45.En?OpenDocument
The Declaration expressly addresses the rights of individual tribal members where U.S. federal law bluffs the issue with the Indian Civil Rights Act.

O Pechanga said...

There is no implication that the disenrolled members belong. It's a historical fact, both in written and oral documentation from Pechanga people alive during the 19th century.

Allen L. Lee said...

"John Gomez Jr., 39, a Pechanga member since childhood, was kicked out in 2004."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-27-2757711526_x.htm

"Anonymous said...
Yes, these non-members may have Indian ancestry, but it does not associate them with Pechanga"

A tribal member since childhood! That's a good enough association for me. The variables of those ancestral associations are impacted by European Colonialism and American Conquest. Ones ancestors may have not originated from the village prior to contact, but their proven association and recognition as members during the cultural sieges from Europe, Mexico, and U.S. occupation carries more weight than where they originated from.
A member since childhood disqualified because of the status of an ancestor? Ask the question.

O Pechanga said...

Mr. Lee brings up a perfect point.

Hunter family descendents have been associated with Pechanga for EIGHT generations, with Paulina Hunter's father being the ONLY one listed as from Pechanga (pichanga).

And he was born before California became a state, before driver's licenses and before the idiot people of the CPP could have put a fake Paulina from Ohio and then accuse our ancestor of being that one.

'aamokat said...

O.P. you ever notice that our opponents don't ever bring up the Ohio referrence anymore?

For those who don't know, the CPP faction of our tribe tried to pass off an entry in the International Geneology Index of the Mormon Church that listed a Paulina Hunter born in Ohio in the 1830s as our ancestor.

The IGI responded to an inquiry by a member of the Hunter family by stating, "It (the IGI) is only an index and not considered an authenticated source. Records in the index should always be verfied against the original records."

When I contacted the IGI I found out that the entry that the CPP tried to use against us was submitted by a member of the Mormon Church after 1991 hardly an historical source.

And even the biased enrollment committee didn't try to use that against us in our disenrollment proceedings.

Hey tribal hack, how come you don't talk about Ohio anymore?

Gentle Readers, ever notice how our tribal crtic always get less and less specific when we shut down his bogus arguments?

Come on hack, let's hear about the so called simple due process we were afforded.

Will you answer my questions this time?