Friday, May 14, 2010

AIRRO's John Gomez Jr. Responds to Banishment by The Corrupt Tribal Council Of Pechanga

In a brief phone interview with John Gomez Jr., President of the American Indian Rights & Resources Organization (AIRRO) he responded to his recent letter of banishment by the tribal council of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, headed by the corrupt Mark Macarro.


Original Pechanga's Blog: John, how is it that Pechanga could tell you that you were banished while at a meeting with other tribes, have you removed from the reservation and then explain that it was for something you said a week AFTER that meeting?

I have no doubt that the Tribal Council will fabricate something to reconcile the inconsistancies in their actions. However, does it really matter? They do not have to be right or do the right thing. They make the rules and they can enforce them as they see fit, regardless of the facts or circumstances.

Original Pechanga's Blog: Are you a threat to the Pechanga Reservation? Who is a bigger threat to the Pechanga People?

What is especially bothersome about the council's action is that they are justifying their action as necessary to protect the people. If the health and welfare of the reservation residents is such a high priority, why not exclude those individuals who have actually committed violent crimes. Maybe it's because those criminals are their criminals, their family.

Or as Chairman Macarro allegedly responded when asked why he was allowing criminals and thiefs to run amok, "That's who we are." I guess that explains it all.

OPB here are excerpts from Mr. Gomez's request for an appeal


1. As a Temecula Indian, I have a property interest in the lands referred to as the Pechanga Indian Reservation. Said lands were set aside by Executive Orders in the 1880’s and 1890’s for the use and benefit of the “Temecula band or village of Indians”. The use and benefit of said lands has never been extinguished or revoked by the entity that has the sole authority to do so- the United States Congress. Until such time as the use and benefit may be extinguished or revoked, I will continue to have a property interest in said lands.


2. I require access to the Pechanga Indian Reservation to personally use the Indian Health Services Clinic. At times, I also transport my grandmother to and from the Indian Health Services Clinic located on the Pechanga Indian Reservation.


... a hearing is also necessary to address the conflict that exists between the Notice dated May 4, 2010 and the notice of exclusion ... delivered by Councilman Masiel on April 14, 2010 as I attended a meeting ... on the Pechanga Indian Reservation.


On April 14, 2010, at or around 12:45 pm, Councilman Masiel asked to speak to me and lead me out of the Pechanga Cultural Resources Building. We were met by David Nelson of the Tribal Rangers. At that time, Councilman Masiel notified me that I had been banned from the reservation and asked me to leave. I notified Councilman Masiel that I had never been notified of any exclusion or banishment and asked when it occurred. He stated that it happened when he was “off the Council” and he had only recently been made aware of it.


.... I requested that Councilman Masiel have a notice sent to me.



On May 7, 2010, I received a Notice of Exclusion.... the Notice cites a statement made by me on April 18, 2010 and published in the Lake County News on April 19, 2010 as the basis for my exclusion. Therefore, I would like clarification as to how a statement published 5 days after I had been officially notified of my exclusion could be used as the basis for said exclusion. OP: Is the Tribal Council motto: A LIE is as good as the truth, if you can get someone to believe it?


... I can provide evidence that the statement referred to has not only been misinterpreted but has been taken out of context. The statement in question was a response to a specific incident that occurred at another reservation... the Chairperson of ... Rancheria and several of her family members had, on April 18, 2010, assaulted a member of the Rancheria who had recently been disenrolled.


Based on the information provided regarding the alleged incident and my personal knowledge that the Congressman from that district had been watching the events ... unfold over the years, I offered my opinion on that matter. (Incidentally, Congressman Thompson did act. On April 29, 2010, the Congressman sent a letter to the House Resources Committee requesting that oversight hearings be held regarding the enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act).


OP: PLEASE share this on Facebook

81 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is ironic because Ronald Rivera a known sex offender works on tribal security and every morning is out greeting the children before school. Now what more of a threat to the people of Pechanga a comment to a congressman or a sex offender greeting kids out side of a school. If you look up Ronald R Rivera on Megan’s law he is there.

O Pechanga said...

Not to mention Andrew Masiel's own crime family members.

How many Multiple FELONS in your family string Councilman?

Nora said...

It's clear that the tribal council doesn't care what people think... look at the notice... it's evident from what they have written that the "innuendo of threat" expressed their being the threat, not John Gomez,Jr. John conducts himself as a gentleman and a professional, unlike, apparently, the council and rangers.

Allen L. Lee said...

I can see how they would perceive the statement as a veiled threat.
However, you would have to show some intent to coerce congress or the federal courts to act against their will by advocating that harm come to a tribal member or stage a harmful event for a dis-enrolled tribal member, or even coerce a dis-enrolling tribal member to act against their will, for it to be a true threat.
It’s important not to confuse advocating enforcement of a right with an unlawful threat. Though both acts may require people to act against their will.
It’s good that you put the statement in context. That is about 100% of the test of determining whether it as a threat or not.
I know you have stated it before, but again I am curious as to the status of your land: Is it trust or non-trust? One status may actually give you a right to show up at the guard shack with a Federal Marshal (court order) and demand access, that should not be perceived as a threat but a right, the other may give the tribe authority to exclude you from it. There are other federal laws and acts that may require that you continue access to tribal land, even as a non-member.




"...A: Land held in trust means the actual title to the property is held by the United States, and that gives the U.S. government the responsibility to protect those property interests.
Trust land can consist of tribally controlled land or individual allotments held by American Indians. "Trust land is the surest basis for the tribe to feel most comfortable in asserting its jurisdiction," said Frank Pommersheim, professor of Indian law at the University of South Dakota School of Law. Non-trust land on reservations can be held by tribes as a whole, American Indians individually, or non-American Indians. The fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government are less extensive on non-trust lands.
Therefore, access to property on a reservation can depend on whether it is trust or non-trust land, whether it is public or private, and whether it is held by the tribe or by an individual.
"To be clear, if it's private property, no matter what use it's put to, I think the owner would have the right to exclude," Gunn said..."
http://www.rcfp.org/americanindian/qanda.html

'aamokat said...

How come the rangers and the council did nothing to protect a Hunter family member who was shoved to the ground when she was picking up her children on the last day they were allowed to go to their tribal school.

Like I said, the people on the other side of the issues of disenrollments, moratoriums, and banishments are the violent people not us.

Not only should the tribal council not banish John Gomez from the reservation, they may be liable for libel and slander against his good name.

Sue them John!

'aamokat said...

Allen Lee said,

"I can see how they would perceive the statement as a veiled threat.
However, you would have to show some intent to coerce congress or the federal courts to act against their will by advocating that harm come to a tribal member or stage a harmful event for a dis-enrolled tribal member, or even coerce a dis-enrolling tribal member to act against their will, for it to be a true threat."

But how can Mr. Gomez be banished for something he hadn't even said yet?

Is the Pechanga tribal council clairvoyant and knows all and can see the future and use that information as evidence against someone?

It is clear that he was informed by Pechanga councilman Andy Masiel that he had been banished when he was escorted off of the reservation by tribal rangers on April 14, 2010 and the statement referrenced in his exclusion letter of May 4, 2010 had been published in the Lake County News on April 19, 2010, with the statement being made, which was taken out of context, on April 18, 2010.

Folks, that is how the current regime does their dirty work.

They twist the facts to fit their agenda, in this case to keep John Gomez Jr off of the land, when the real reason is he has been fighting, non violently, for his and many others' rights that have been violated by the current corrupt regime at Pechanga.

Again I will say, sue them John for libel and slander against your good name!

O Pechanga said...

Remember, that John Gomez was acting as an agent for another sovereign tribe when Mr. Masiel asked him to leave. They have no respect for another tribe's sovereignty, do they...?

Luiseno said...

It appears that someone DID get hurt, it was Mr Gomez. And don't try to tell me that the lifetime banishment was not a vengeful and hurtful action.

Anonymous said...

John is a great man fighting for the preservation of his birthright and of other Native americans He has only Brought the corruption of Pechanga to all to see along with the rest that have been Banished for the same reason ,for our rights civil and BIRTH Thank You JOHN for Leading US to Victory GOODBYE PECHANGA

Allen L. Lee said...

Not arguing with the suspicous timing of the banishment 'Aamokat, or the recovery of the statement by the tribe.
Just saying they would perceive it as a threat, considering their roll in the dis-enrollment of tribal members. They are fully aware that the dis-enrolled haven't gone away to be Americans, that Congress has been asked to get involved, and that a recent international human rights discussion has been held. They are expecting something to happen, and the fear is starting to show. Perceiving threats were there are none is one sign of that fear. J. Gomez qualified the statement as non-threatening, and they should retract any action they have taken based on a perceived threat. I agree with Luiseno that people have already gotten hurt and intimidated, objects and projectiles hurled at residents and persons, mostly committed by tribal members.

'aamokat said...

Allen Lee said,

"They are expecting something to happen, and the fear is starting to show. Perceiving threats were there are none is one sign of that fear."

The only thing they fear is that the truth is coming out about the corruption at Pechanga.

Part of the problem is arrogance on their part that they can with impunity banish Mr. Gomez before he even said the so called offensive comment and use that comment, which was taken out of context, as the reason for his banishment.

By 10 to 1 odds at least that even though the banishment letter says he can appeal the decision of the tribal council, that he won't be allowed to address the council on this matter and he is just banished for life, at least for now, with no legal recourse.

He may send his letter to them requesting an appeal but the verdict is already in.

I say at least for now because justice is coming for all of us and I hope sooner than later

Anonymous said...

Apeealing the banishment to the very body that sent the notice. There is a clear conflict of intrest.

'aamokat said...

Anonymous of May 15, 2010 8:20 AM said,

"Apeealing the banishment to the very body that sent the notice. There is a clear conflict of intrest."

Of course it is a conflict of interest but that is how they do everything, they stack the deck in their favor.

But even so, I will be very surprised if Mr. Gomez is allowed to appeal the decision even if he follows their procedures.

Isn't if obvious that, just like our disenrollments, the decision to banish him has already been made?

That is seen by him being told he was banished by Councilman Masiel and escorted off of the reservation by tribal rangers that he was banished before he even made the comment they are now using to justify their actions.

Chairman Mark Macarro has said, "what goes on at Pechanga is no business of the white man."

However, since Pechanga will not be part of the local intertribal court that handles cases like this for other neighboring tribes, it is clear Macarro and Co. very likely hold the view that it is no business of other Indians as well.

That would be a possible solution, a fair and impartial intertribal court to look into disenrollments, moratoriums, and banishments that has the authortiy to make rouge tribes like Pechanga follow their own laws.

Michael said...

It would be good if we could send this information to Mary Bono Mack and Darrell Issa. They are the closest Congresspeople to Pechanga.

It puts them on notice and would force Pechanga to spend more to bribe them out of doing anything. That's less money for Burbee and his handlers.

pale rider said...

Of course they will argue that they have the right to banish the disenrolled,further more they will state he does not live here and he can visit his family off the reservation and get health services on another reservation.

Thats how the tribe plays ball,and there lawyers will state people are trying to use banishment as a tool to enter court despite the jeffrado ruling regarding disenrollment.

And yes the pechanga tribe did cause a huge blow to the indian nation because of there ruling against the hunter family!

THEY are the sole ones responsible for that huge damage (they could hang their coat on that rack,or millions of coats on that)!

Anonymous said...

The Jeffredo ruling HAS been amended to include civil violations...

That is because of Pechanga. Their current banishment actions could further erode tribal sovereignty.

Tribe across the country will be hurt by the actions of Pechanga, or as it was known in the time of Paulina Hunters father... PICHANGA.

Anonymous said...

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

RIGHTS OF CO-OWNERS

Each co-owner is only entitled to use of a trust or restricted allotment
according to the undivided interest they own. No one co-tenant or group of co-tenants have the right to exclude the other co-tenants from the property.

each co-owner has free access to go on and off the common property.

much more regarding rights of owners. Copies available from BIA

Anonymous said...

JEFFRADO ALLOWS CIVIL SUITS AND VIOLATIONS?

Does this mean if the tribe defaulted in the Joe Liska case being civil does he get what he asked for?

This would send shockwaves thru indian country (pechanga boneheads)

maybe mr allen lee can clear this up?

Allen L. Lee said...

I will try to answer a couple of the questions in the broadest of terms.
The big picture is jurisdiction.
A civil suit against the tribe will most certainly involve a jurisdictional issue, but the individuals of the tribe to my understanding are not immune.
The recent banishment issue also involves jurisdiction. Once a person has been deemed a non-member, they technically would have no right, and the key word is "right" to an appeal. They would have to voluntarily agree to have the issue decided by the sovereign in question in order for any decision to hold merit. By the same token, the sovereign has no authority over a non-member, which leaves the dis-enrolled no recourse than to seek non- tribal resolutions, it is no longer an intra-tribal issue for non-members without a mutually agreeable grant of authority between the non-member and the sovereign. . Once they have been dis-enrolled it is no longer and intra-tribal issue requiring exhaustion of tribal remedies for there is no tribal authority over non-members.

Unresolved land issues for dis-enrolled tribal members I believe becomes a federal issue since tribal jurisdiction over the non-member no longer exists. See the excerpt below:
“…section 1151 includes as Indian country all "trust" and all "restricted" allotments of land, whether or not these allotments are inside the boundaries of an Indian reservation. (11) (Essentially, a "trust" allotment is federal land which has been set aside for the exclusive use of an Indian, who is called the "allotee." A "restricted" allotment is land for which federal approval must be obtained before it can be sold, leased or mortgaged, whether the land is owned by the federal government or not. Even a "non-trust" allotment outside the reservation is considered Indian country so long as the allotee retains ownership. (12) (A "non-trust" allotment is land which the federal government has given to an Indian with full rights of ownership, as opposed to a "trust" allotment, in
which ownership is retained by the United States.) ..”
http://www.indiancanyon.org/Definitions1.html

history teacher said...

Lets get clearer on this,jurisdiction and not immune,well if their not immue then the federal court has jurisdiction because of the Jeffrado case then ,if they can hear civil issues this is clearly civil as far as trust proceeds ,private not tribal people got trust proceeds in the (hoopa yurok settlement act).So I think thats a huge case that can re-enforce granting trust proceeds.


also if this civil case took the same path as any civil case in federal court ,then it would be up to a judge or jury to decide the outcome.

frog warrior said...

Yes ,but with a default judgement theres no jury ,they lost and the judge hands down the win (what ever it may be)!

Anonymous said...

Louise Victoria Jeffredo v. Mark A. Macarro
Whether habeas relief under the ICRA can be granted in a non-criminal context is an issue ... In fact, the court in Quair I found that petitioners seeking relief under § 1303 ...
www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-55037&s=CA&d=42337 - Cached

JOE said...

LET ME BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU,,,1303

REMEMBER WHEN I STARTED TALKING LOUD ABOUT FRAUD AND BANISHMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAUD?

THE TRIBES ATTORNEY WOULD SAY JUDGE (PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION)HES A PRIVATE PERSON JUDGE NO SAY SO!!

WELL UNDER 1303 PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION DOES NOT APPLY IT USE TO BE IT HAD TO BE CRIMINAL TO BE HEARD UNDER 1303.

NOW A CIVIL ACTION COULD BE HEARD UNDER 1303 PRIVATE PERSON JOE LISKA CAN STATE NOW WHY HE THINKS TRIBAL OFFICIALS ACTED OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY.IF MR LISKA WANTS THE COURT TO KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE ACTED THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PECHANGA OR TEMECULA INDIAN,IN ORDER TO HOLD HIM OUT OF THE TRIBE THEN HE CAN SAY SO.

(WHY)BECAUSE THE TRIBES ATTORNEYS CANNOT SAY INNER TRIBAL ISSUE ,MR LISKA IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITH WHAT HE IS SAYING (AS A PRIVATE PERSON) TO PROVE TRIBAL OFFICIAL MIS-CONDUCT AND WHY HE CAN SUE THEM FOR ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AND IT VIOLATED HIS INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS.

(YES PANDORA,S BOX OR JAR HAS BEEN OPENED)!

'aamokat said...

Yes padora's box has been opened both with Mr. Liska's case and the fact that the world can see how our esteemed tribal leadership (or should I say steamed because they have been found out) with them banishing John Gomez Jr. for saying something, taken out of context, before he had even said the supposed offensive remark.

The fact that Councilman Andy Masiel told Mr. Gomez he was banished and had him escorted off of the reservation by the tribal rangers on April 14, 2010 a full four days before Gomez's remark and five days before it was published in the Lake County News speaks volumes.

So they scrambled after the fact to find an excuse to put down on paper why he was being banished when we all know it is because of his being critical of the tribe for all of the abuses of our rights that have occured.

Maybe I should start using my real name so that I can be banished too but what excuse would they have for banishing me when I have stated and am stating here again that I am totally against vilolence to achieve our aims.

Would it be because I am exercising my freedom of speech rights, which doesn't exist on the Rez?

Of course I am already part of the human rights report so where is my banishment letter?

O.P. have you gotten yours yet?

joe said...

LIFE IS A HUMBLING TEACHER,YOU NEVER NO WHAT YOU GOT TILL ITS GONE,

IS THE CUP HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL,THEY SAY YOU MUST EMPTY THE CUP FIRST (TO MANY THOUGHTS)THEN WHEN THE CUP IS EMPTY,GOD CAN TEACH YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.

I LIKE THAT (BUDDA STUFF)

Anonymous said...

OP,worried you might be next?

JOE said...

WE SAW BY JEFRADO V MACARRO IF THE HUNTERS WERE BANISHED THEY COULD SUE AND BE BACK ON THE REZ SO DON,T GO THERE.

IN FACT ANYONE THAT HAS LAND THERE THAT HAS BEEN BANISHED HAS A WIDE OPEN DOOR FOR A LAW SUIT!

'aamokat said...

"OP,worried you might be next?"

I don't think he is worried but he, like me, would probably be honored to be bansihed.

It would show that we are stepping on their toes and they are feeling the pain.

I am stating an analogy not making a threat as I have made it clear that I don't advocate violence to meet our goals.

Truth is on our side and that is why John Gomez Jr was banished not for any kind of threat to anyone.

Truth hurts the liars in their hearts!

Anonymous said...

OP, has land? Well I guess sort of,lol?

Anonymous said...

polysqwalis says
lets unite for our BanisHment suits against the corrupt tribal council FILE IT .DO IT the Liska case is going forward to Win come together SHOW THE PATTERN OF CORRUPTION STAND UP

Anonymous said...

Dont forget about the tosobals
more to come

Anonymous said...

The unscrupulous Mr. Gomez lies to himself and others when he claims an interest in land meant for the Temecula Indians or the Pechanga Indians. The lying Mr. Gomez instead descends from Pablo Apis, a Luiseno Indian man from the San Luis Rey area. The church at the time (mid-19th-Century) did grant Pablo Apis acreage in the Temecula Valley, fronting on the Temecula Creek. This land, however, became sold off over the years. The deceiving Mr. Gomez fails to mention these historical facts. The misleading Mr. Gomez has no legitimate claim to Indian lands in the Temecula area.

Further, as another sign of his ancestry arising elsewhere, the negative Mr. Gomez became disenrolled after he asserted his lineal descent from Pablo Apis. This assertion, factually true, in effect led to a self-disenrollment on the part of Mr. Gomez and his clan. Ignorantly, Mr. Gomez supposed that the prominence of his ancestor, Pablo Apis, in the Temecula Valley and his designation by a romance novelist, Helen Hunt Jackson, as a "Pechanga Chief," equated to Pechanga Indian ancestry or a strong claim thereto. The ignorant Mr. Gomez simply misunderstood the criteria for Pechanga tribal membership. It does not include a connection to Pablo Apis, and never has.

As to his recent exclusion from Pechanga and the reason thereof, Mr. Gomez brought it on himself. The short version: Open mouth, insert foot. Otherwise, the news report wherein the talkative Mr. Gomez went too far with his anger and frustration provides the basis for the Pechanga Tribal Government action to exclude this non-member. The news report text details various specifics, until the last three paragraphs, where generalities enter. The text characterizes the wild-talking Mr. Gomez as "concerned that it may take something drastic to get any action on this matter [disenrollment]." Then the operative paragraph appears: “Maybe Congress and the courts really won't do anything until someone gets hurt,” he said. “That might be what triggers a review of this.” The comment here functions like a separate statement from the rest of the news article. Anybody familiar with the mentality of the loose-tongued Mr. Gomez has seen his confusion and anger and frustration boiling over. He finally put his view in words for a journalist to record and broadcast. Now, the foolish Mr. Gomez has put himself in another pickle.

Anonymous said...

What is your evidence that what you have said is true, Anonymous?

'aamokat said...

Anonymous of May 18, 2010 11:36 AM said...

"As to his recent exclusion from Pechanga and the reason thereof, Mr. Gomez brought it on himself. The short version: Open mouth, insert foot. Otherwise, the news report wherein the talkative Mr. Gomez went too far with his anger and frustration provides the basis for the Pechanga Tribal Government action to exclude this non-member."

Then why was Mr. Gomez informed he was banished a full four days before he even made the so called offensive comment if he was banished for making the comment?

Mr. Gomez works for the government of the Ramona Band of Cauhilla Indians and he was with officials of the Ramona Band at Pechanga when he was told by Pechanga tribal councilman Andy Masiel that he had been banished and he was escorted off of the reservation by tribal rangers with no reason given for this action.

This can be documented and I am sure that the Ramona Band was insulted by Pechanga's actions against one of their representatives and they would be glad to testify that Mr. Gomez had in fact been banished before the so called fact occured, taken out of context, that was used against him.

Reportedly Mr. Gomez was informed by Mr. Masiel that he had already been banished for two years but he hadn't been told he was banished.

Anonymous tribal hack you are either ignorant of the facts and the timing of the banishment of Mr. Gomez or you are an arrogant liar who thinks that no one can do anything about still another injustice committed by the current Pechanga regime.

I would say in all likelihood it is the latter.

Any rational or fair minded person can see the absurdity of someone being banished for something he hadn't even said yet but obviously we are not dealing with fair minded people and if our anonymous tribal hack really believes in the reasoning behind Mr. Gomez's banishment, then he is very irrational indeed and maybe he needs to be thrown into a padded room somewhere for his own safety.

With the money you get you can afford the very best in treatment.

Anonymous said...

What is your proof to these alleged actions as what you say ABOUT JOHN THIS IS not the same person that we know and have known for many years working with him to STOP TRIBAL INJUSTICES AND VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS OF TRUE TEMECULA INDIANS AND THE VERY TOXIC THINGS YOU SAY IS WITHEN THE TRIBE NOT HERE INDIANS LIKE YOU ARE THE VERY REASON THAT PECHANGA WILL BE MADE NEW LOOK AT THIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THEY CANT EVEN LIE THEIR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE

'aamokat said...

The excerpt below is from pages 22 and 23 of the Band's enrollment committee's Record of Decision of the Hunter family disenrollment regarding some historical background:

"Pablo Apis, Headman of the Temecula Band was given a Mexican grant for the Rancho Temecula. Pablo Apis lived at or near Temecula, California. Doc No. 8 The general area where Pablo Apish and his relatives lived is described in the 1845 land grant to Pablo Apis which was confirmed to his heirs in 1872."

Mind you, this was written in 2006 two years after the descendants of Manuela Miranda, including John Gomez Jr, were disenrolled.

In fact a corner of Pablo's land grant is where the Band's casino now sits.

So Mr. Gomez has no historical claim to Temecula lands?

You sir, as usual, are full of crap!

One more thing, don't you think the biased enrollment committee against Mr. Gomez's family would have used the fact that he is a descendant of Pablo Apis if they could have gotten the desired result they wanted by doing so?

As it was it had no bearing even in the bogus disenrollment of the descendants of Manuela Miranda.

Anonymous said...

The part that I'm shocked by in the above post regarding Pablo Apis not being part of the tribe is that, (assuming the person that wrote this is a tribal member), why are they not doing anything to remove the rest of the tribal members that draw their lineage from Pablo Apis? If maintaining the integrity of the tribe’s roll is so important to you and your family, why would you allow non Pechanga Indians to be enrolled? It just doesn’t make sense.

Allen L. Lee said...

Well, Anonymous May 19, 2010 10:31 AM. I never really thought that the disenrollments had anything to do in reality to Pablo Apis or Paulina Hunter. That might explain some of the mixed signals regarding descendants. The "fake' reason of lineal descent is like a lie that they can't keep up with. But, as I have said before, the the "fake" reason is a lot more serious as to human rights than the "real" reason for the dis-enrollments, which is westernized political animosity and economic greed in this generation, not generations past.
There probably is a Temeku way to resolve this dispute, but I doubt that many who claim such cultural heritage through lineal descent know what it is.

stand your ground said...

Again you are correct Mr.Lee...it was a political ouster of both families, the real Temecula Indians.
The sitting Pechanga Tribal Board and Enrollment Committee would have been voted out
and they could not let that happen, so they chose certain people from certain families and disenrolled them.
Whith that problem out of their way, these COWARDS then could threaten the rest of the tribes members, who disagreed with them, the same fate.
Pechanga Tribal Members are afraid of the THUGS WHO ARE RUNNING THE TRIBE.

Now I have a request...
Mr.Lee, is there a chance that We,
meaning myself and a few others, could meet with you in a round table discussion to pick our brains on certain subjects of which you are very knowledgeable.
We can arrange a meeting thru
Original Pechanga, I will leave my name and e-mail and phone number with him, you can then get in touch with me.
It would be an honor to get together with you.
Thank you so much
from one who lives in Riverside.

Allen L. Lee said...

Hello Stand Your Ground,
Thanks for the invitation. I don't live in Southern California anymore. I'm in the Northwest near Portland, Oregon.
We will all have to talk, including with our adversaries. As of yet nothing has given cause for all to come to one table. Hopefully, Human Rights interveners will see the need for mediation and talks, because federal interveners see nothing, and the problem continues.
I will send my e-mail in to anyone who wants to communicate with me seriously, from either side of this dispute soon. When we can get to the point of "Us and Them" rather than "Us or Them" we will have found the solution.

'aamokat said...

Allen Lee said,

"We will all have to talk, including with our adversaries

When we can get to the point of "Us and Them" rather than "Us or Them" we will have found the solution."

But our opponents have no reason to talk to us as they think it is over but why negotiate with people who banish someone for something he hadn't even said yet, who disenroll people without due process of law, and who promise not to do any changes to a piece of land but then tear up the land and put a golf course on it once they get the land?

1. It is a fact that John Gomez Jr was banished before he even made the alleged veiled threat, taken out of context, that was used as the reasoning behind his banishment.

2. It is fact that very close family members of tribal members who submitted and/or signed statements against hundreds of tribal members who ended up being disenrolled were allowed to vote on their disenrollees' cases, a violation of the Band's constitution and bylaws forbidding malice or predjudice against tribal members.

And it is also a fact that some of those same people who were for the disenrollment of the Hunters in the 2000's approved their membership years before there was ever a casino.

So did they lie before the casino to pad the rolls to get more federal funding for having a bigger tribe or did they lie years later when they said the Hunters have never been recognized as being tribal members after the casino?

3. And it is a fact that the tribe promised not to do any changes to the Great Oak Ranch property but tore up the property and put a golf course there once the land was put into trust for the tribe.

Unscrupulous people deserve to be in jail, to lose their positions of power, and/or even to lose their own tribal membership for crimes against the people and they should not be appeased in any way.

So we are supposed to sit down with liars and thieves?

Anonymous said...

That anonymous guy calls Gomez "unscrupulous". What a laugh. Fighting for civil rights that have been violated, versus the Pechanga corrupt tribal government fighting to KEEP VIOLATING civil and human rights.

Is that an example of 'scruples'?

Allen L. Lee said...

I understand you position 'Aamokat.
Yes, unfortunately we must be willing to sit down with liars and thieves in order to ask them to stop lying and thieving.
Two course of action must happen for this to occur.
First the liars and thieves must actually acknowledge that they have committing a wrong against a just law or rule, and secondly, something must occur to prove advantagous for the the liar and thief to negotiate with you on an equal standing. They have to want to not be your adversary anymore.
If the liar or thief continues as a belligerant to your rights after the first two condition have been employed, then it would be time to consider punitive measures, but as of now, no one has acknowledged any wrongdoing and no cause for equal standing negotiations has been established. In their minds they are neither liars or thieves,they have done nothing wrong, and it's the victims fault because it is the victim who is actually the fraud by ancestry.
Nothing will be corrected until the wrong is properly acknowledged by the wrong-doer.
An ethical mediator not corrupted by Casino money will not take a side on the position, they will simply try to identify the wrong, it's source, and recommend corrective measures agree-able to the wronged and the wrong-doer.
If the bad blood has gone too far that you can not see a reconciliation with your adversaries, then we have a whole different issue regarding your indigenous right of self-determination. It's a statement that you refuse to be recognized as a sovereign with them because the wrong is un-forgivable.
The internal key to sovereignty is self-determination, the external key to sovereignty is recognition by other sovereigns. Both keys are nessecary components of sovereignty

'aamokat said...

The only people who would truly think that banishing John Gomez for a comment he hadn't even made yet would have to be insane.

So since they likely aren't insane, then the other possiblity is that they are liars.

Any unbiased person with no stake in the outcome would rule that, especially in this one instance, That Mr. Gomez was not banished for making the so called offensive comment.

I think it is clear he was banished for speaking out about the Pechanga government's misdeeds of recent years.

'aamokat said...

So anonymous tribal hack, justify how Pechanga can banish John Gomez Jr for something, taken out of context, that he hadn't even said yet.

Because the facts are he was already banished and the crooked tribal government scrambled to try to come up with an excuse for doing so.

Answer my quesiton, we are waiting!

Also, will the tribe banish me for exercising my right of freedom of speech if they find out for sure what my identity is?

After all, I am on record as opposing violence to meet our aims so what would their excuse be?

Funny, we are freedom fighters and you are on the wrong side of history and you don't even see it or don't care.

Proud of yourselves?

Anonymous said...

What does the law actually state about banishments? Off the res you can be effectively banished or removed from a business or an individual’s land without a reason, so why wouldn't a tribe have the same right. It does bring into play one thing that’s been mention on here "land interest". People have brought this up but how does that play into the law. I assume by saying a person has "land interest" that mean their name is list on shares of land or on the property somehow, not that you have family that owns land. If you look at the tribe as a sovereign nation, then nations have the right stop people from entering their county regardless of land ownership, of course those other countries are not within the borders of the USA, which offers more freedoms than other countries.

'aamokat said...

But the tribe's casino sits on the land that was part of Mr. Gomez's ancestor land.

Also, why would they even have to state the trumped up charge of him supposedly making a veiled threat after he had already been banished if all they could say was that they have the right to exclude anyone they want regardless of the reason?

That is how they do everything, they make up so called facts to meet their ends.

In the case of our disenrollments the enrollment committee said they could reject any evidence that contradicted their conclusion that we are not legitimate tribal members.

They said rejections could be for reasons such as that they weren't authentic and that they were contradicted by more credible sources.

So the enrollment committee considered statements, some of which weren't even notarized or certified, from people from the CPP faction of the tribe, some of whom are close family members of enrollment committee members, more credible than evidence, by the way all of which was notarized or certified, from people from both the historical period of the original reservation as well as current elders not from the CPP faction.

In fact one of the statements against the Hunters' tribal membership was from Raymond Basquez Sr, the brother of enrollment committee members Irhene Scearce and Ruth Masiel and the uncle of councilman Andy Masiel who ruled on the Hunters' appeal, that listed tribal elders who allegedly said that the Hunters had never been recognized as tribal members.

So Mr. Basquez's statement of him quoting people no longer alive with no proof that they said what he claimed was more credible than eye witness testimony that supported the Hunters' membership?

Ironically one of the past elders Mr. Basquez quoted, Salida Stevenson, gave notarized testimony in the 1938 probate of some of Paulina Hunter's children for their shares of the Hunter family land allotment.

So if Stevenson never considered the Hunters as tribal members, then why would she testify on their behalf?

For our moratorium friends, I have not forgotten about you and in fact I have probably posted more on this blog against the moratorium than almost everyone else has posted.

Allen L. Lee said...

Good query, Anonymous of May 24, 2010 10:36 AM.
Last I checked, banishment from regions for crimes by states and local governments is not unconstitutional.
However, one must establish a crime, and the genetic or residential history of an ancestor is not a crime. Tribes should concern themselves with whether their banishments conform to standards of Human and Civil rights.
In America, there are perhaps thousands if not millions of "American" citizens who are in possession of land because certains ethnic people were banished from their lawful property because of their ethnicity.
No sovereign under international norms can simply take the property of an individual without establishing the greater good of the collective. Once establishing the greater good of the collective, the individual is expected to be duly compensated for the loss of the property.
Genetic preference to justify a banishment probably won't stand as a greater good for any collective in the world, be they Nation/States or indigenous Tribes.

Anonymous said...

Well my question is not that related to genetics. Here is an example Allen Lee, to my understanding you don't claim to have lineage from Pechanga/Temecula Indians, correct? Assuming that is correct if you went to the Pechanga reservation and got to the guard and said you just wanted to drive around for the fun of it, they would likely turn you away. So is that legal? If that is legal then why would it be considered different for a disenrolled person? I realize that you can say our ancestors once owned this land but if I had an ancestor in England that owned land 200 years ago I can't just come and go as I please on someone else’s land now. I do understand and agree in that example that the government didn’t set aside land like they did for Indians but if the government set it aside for the tribe and gave the tribes the power to establish the membership the tribe, wouldn’t that logically give the tribe the right to restrict non-member whether Indian, not Indian, disenrolled, etc. ability to access the land. That’s why I was asking if anyone actually knows the law, because I don’t and I was curious.

'aamokat said...

My question though is, as I stated, why didn't they just say that they can limit access to any non member instead of making up a reason that wouldn't stand up in any fair court proceeding?

It is absurd that he had been banished before he even said the so called offensive comment that was used as the reason for his banishment.

Sheriff Bart said...

Mr. Potato Head: "if you want to keep your phony baloney jobs gentleman you had better come up with an excuse to ban John Gomez from the Rez."

Corny: "He's right, we better do it and keep our phoney baloney jobs!"

Various flunkies in the room: "Harump! harump! harump!"

Corny: "I didn't get a harump from that guy!"

General Custer: "Give Corny a harump!"

Flunky #1: Harump! harump!

Anonymous said...

But I do own land on the reservation, and as of this date still have ownership. Its not that we once owned land and no longer own it, many of us still own the land that was given to our familys in the 1800's by the President of the United States at the creation of the reservation. Many still have homes on that same reservation.

So how is it there right to banish me from the reservation? I guess its because might makes right.

Allen L. Lee said...

Anonymous,
Your statement is absolutely related to genetic discrimination if you are talking about the banishment of J. Gomez. My rights as a non member never existed as a prior relationship with the tribe.
Does a person with a pre-existing right have the same standing as someone who never did? Absolutely not. It is an apples and oranges comparison. I would have no unresolved legal rights when I approached the guard shack, J Gomez would have. In international law, J Gomez would have issues of right of return , re-patriation, internally displaced persons, loss compensation, etc., because of his pre-existing legal status, I would not. The most critical part of the land dispute is that the land is ultimately federal land reserved for sovereign indigenous people. Land restriction rights for tribes are wholly dependant on what agreements tribes and tribal individuals have with the federal governmet. Trust land, non-trust land etc. As for the 200 year England reference, Each country has their own non citizen inheritance laws. Some countries do allow land inheritance to non-citizens that can prove a family tie, I haven't checked England's inheritance law based on 200 years, but if has been someone elses land as you say for an extended period of time, then it would depend on the legal history of the land.

“..Like all rights, the right to return binds governments. No government can violate this right. Only individuals may elect not to exercise it…”
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/

“21. In no case may a person be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his or her own country. ... The Committee considers that there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one's own country could be reasonable. A State party must not, by stripping a person of nationality or by expelling an individual to a third country, arbitrarily prevent this person from returning to his or her own country. “
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/6c76e1b8ee1710e380256824005a10a9?Opendocument

The Human Rights Committee General Comment on Article 12 of the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights (November 1999

….The wording of article 12, paragraph 4, does not distinguish between nationals and aliens ("no one"). Thus, the persons entitled to exercise this right can be identified only by interpreting the meaning of the phrase "his own country". The scope of "his own country" is broader than the concept "country of his nationality". It is not limited to nationality in a formal sense, that is, nationality acquired at birth or by conferral; it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien. This would be the case, for example, for nationals of a country who have been stripped of their nationality in violation of international law,
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/hrc-gen-cmt-rtr.htm


and to emphasize:
“…This would be the case, for example, for nationals of a country who have been stripped of their nationality in violation of international law, “
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/hrc-gen-cmt-rtr.htm
Herein is the case difference between myself going to the Pechanga guard shack and being banished and J. Gomez going to the guard shack and being banished. An apples and oranges comparison. Can you see the difference now?

Allen L. Lee said...

and:

"..An undivided, fractional interest is a percentage of ownership in a land parcel. When an Indian landowner passes away without a will, trust property transfers to the heirs as one parcel with several owners. With each following generation, these fractions of ownership interest are split again among the heirs, into even smaller percentages of ownership. On this Reservation alone, at the time the project began, there were more than 2,000 owners who owned less than 2% interest in 88 tracts of land."
http://www.cskt.org/tr/tld_ilca.htm

All tribal reservations lands are not exclusively owned by the tribe.

Anonymous said...

Let me start this by saying I think that both the Hunters and Mirandas are from Pechanga, but I am simply trying to understand what the differences between members, disenrolled/moratorium, and non- Indians are.
I understand the difference between you and J. Gomez, and my comments would certainly not apply in the same manner to someone who currently has land. However, Pablo Apis died prior to the establishment of the Pechanga reservation, and I don’t believe Manuela Miranda was on the list of those allotted land on the Pechanga reservation in 1895; that’s not to say that his descendants don't currently have land. It just brings up the issue that if the tribe's view is that Manuela Miranda was not part of the tribe and her descendants did not receive land through her. According to the tribe they would have received their land through non-blood ties to Temecula Indians, i.e. a relative or friend from a different Pechanga line left them the land. That now brings up the issue of a non-Indian owning land on the Pechanga reservation; to my understanding this was not allowed.
In my opinion it’s very tricky because it seems like it going back to whether a family line has a connection to the tribe. For example, if the tribe was to rightfully disenroll a family line, what rights should that family have? If disenrollment truly fixed a mistake then how were that families rights violated?

'aamokat said...

As John Gomez Jr points out:

"As a Temecula Indian, I have a property interest in the lands referred to as the Pechanga Indian Reservation. Said lands were set aside by Executive Orders in the 1880’s and 1890’s for the use and benefit of the “Temecula band or village of Indians”. The use and benefit of said lands has never been extinguished or revoked by the entity that has the sole authority to do so- the United States Congress. Until such time as the use and benefit may be extinguished or revoked, I will continue to have a property interest in said lands."

The key point is that while a slim majority of the current leadership at Pechanga claims that Pechanga is a subset of the Temecula Band, it is clear that the lands on the Pechanga reservation were set aside for the Indians of Temecula.

So what gives them the right to deny access to said lands that were not set aside only for the so called Pechanga Band but for all of the Temecula Indians?

And while it is clear that a supplement to the original written application of 1978, which both the M. Mirandas and the Hunters were enrolled under, states that among proof for tribal membership was being a direct descendant of a Temecula Indian or an original allottee, and both of these families meet one of more of these criteria, let's for the sake of our discussion acknowledge the tribe's bogus argument that they are not legitimate tribal members.

Well the tribe acknowledges that Pablo Apis(h) was the headman of the Temecula Indians during the mid 1800's and that Paulina Hunter was given a land patent as a Temecula Indian by the U.S. government, which by the way the tribe had 25 years to dispute but they never did.

So both families have the right to access the land as do the Tosabols who were banished for merely going to their family land but who are not current tribal members.

Reportedly many of the Tosabols had their applications in before the deadline for the moratorium but were unfairly denied tribal membership anyway.

Anonymous said...

First, I don't think you can include the Hunter line in our current discussion. Pauline Hunter was given an allotment so personally that was the governments acknowledgement that she was a Temecula Indian. In terms of John Gomez's statement that he has land interest simply because he believes Pablo Apis was a Temecula Indian; I agree with this in principal. The issue now becomes if the tribe says Pablo Apis was not part of the tribe. If the federal government allows the tribe to determine its members, doesn’t that by definition mean they could say we researched the tribe and determined that Pablo Apis was not part of the tribe? For example, the basquez/masiel family really have no tie to Pechanga, so if they were disenrolled could they say that they are Temecula Indians and therefore should be allowed on the reservation? Who should determine this, the tribe or the federal government?

Allen L. Lee said...

First anonymous,
Let me thank you for coming to the board and engaging in frank discussions as I have said before, no solution will be found if we don't talk.
Pablo Apis has a similar political history to a Cherokee ancestor named Nancy Ward. Both appeased American interests and there are some Native people today who hold animosity towards ancestors who did such things. Combined with westernized political differences today of certain descendants and I see a suspicious cause for some of dis-enrollments.
Recently, I came across a similar case involving Canadian citizens who thought their religion based ancestors were in Canada at the time a law was passed gaurantee-ing them descendancy rights to citizenship. They found out their ancestors were actually religious refugees in Mexico and the line gradually made it to Canada. The argument that these persons had no descendancy rights to citizenship came up.
The point in my mind which makes it greater than the status of any ancestor is the pre-existing legal status of the living descendant.
Once Canada, as the state, recognized these people as citizens of Canada, they would have to bear a greater burden than simply ancestry to remove the rights of citizenship already recognized.
Every indigenous tribe, as a separate sovereign, should be expected to adhere to the basic principles of Human Rights. Any descendant of Pablo Apis who possessed full membership/citizenship in the tribe
should retain those rights based on their political affiliation with the tribe, not the political affiliation or genetic profile of the ancestor.
Prove to me that the particular Pablo Apis descendant has had no political affiliation or recognition as a tribal member, and I will agree with your assertion of tribal rights. If we are talking about a dis-enrolled tribal member who was recognized as a legal tribal member since childhood, then I find it secondary to concern oneself with the political or genetic status of Pablo Apis.

White Buffalo said...

Mr. Potato Head: "if you want to keep your phony baloney jobs gentleman you had better come up with an excuse to ban John Gomez from the Rez."

I love that quote

'aamokat said...

The thing is Pablo Apish was called Headman of the Temecula Indians by the tribe's enrollment committee in the Records of Decisions against both the Manuela Miranda family and the Hunters and all official sides agree that Pablo was of the Temecula tribe.

It is only the trouble makers who come here that claim Pablo was not Temecula and the fact that Mr. Gomez is a descendant of Pablo had no bearing on his family's disenrollment.

So it is not just Mr. Gomez saying Pablo was Temecula but it is an historical fact.

M. Miranda, Pablo's granddaughter, was forced to move in with an older relative when as a five year old child her mother died and that was the reasoning behind her descendants' disenrollment.

Ironically, her relative, Candarlaria Nesecat Flores, also wasn't living at Pechanga during the historical period of the late 1800's.

However, her descendants were cleared from disernollment with vitually the same family history.

So either both family lines should be in the tribe or both should be out of the tribe.

Can we say malice and predjudice against the M. Miranda descendants, a violation of the equal protection clause of the Band's constitution and bylaws under Article V?

Also, as stated here many times, there are many descendants of Pablo Apish who are still official members of the Band including, among others, the Picos, the Lukers, and the Magees.

So yes Mr. Gomez does have a hereditary claim to Temecula Indian lands and, like I said, it is the historical revisionists (liars) who claim he doesn't because of his linage from Pablo Apish.

The reason I bring up the fact that the Hunters, M. Mirandas, and the Tosabols as well have historical ties as Temecula Indians is because of, what I believe, are plans to try to eventually exclude everyone who is not a tribal member from all access and benefits of the lands set aside for the Indians of Temecula.

P.S. why do some of you who read this blog believe anything the troublemakers who come here to disrupt things have to say?

Sheriff Bart said...

Quiz question of the day.

Who are Mr. Potato Head, Corny, and General Custer?

I will answer shortly for those who don't know or can't guess.

White Buffalo said...

I know, I know, I created one of the names. Can you guess.

'aamokat said...

Corny is Mark Macarro as he said, even if all we had was a cornfield the disenrollments would have occured.

Anonymous said...

I believe people would understand better if they could actually see the record of decision in the disenrollments of these two families. I believe that people are still telling lies to others to cover up exactly what happened. I know when I talk to current tribal people they are shocked at the record of decision, or they are good actors. Either way, it would be good to actually read the record of decision on these matters.

Anonymous said...

To aamokat and Allen,
Thanks for all the information I'm just trying to get an understanding of the legal side of things. I'm not in the tribe, I’m in the moratorium, and I can trace my line back to Manuela Miranda. I tend to try to think of things from the side of how the tribe would argue. I do this to try to determine if their argument has any basis.

aamokat you asked "P.S. why do some of you who read this blog believe anything the troublemakers who come here to disrupt things have to say?" The reason people believe different things is because a lot of people on the side of the disenrolled and moratorium post ridiculous things. For example, I’m trying to have a discussion about the legal issues at play and others post irrelevant name calling comments. These people certainly have the right to do so but it takes away from the real issues. Other people post things like the “Feds are closing the casino”; I assume they do this to try to create panic, but why post things you know are now true, it just hits the credibility of the site.

'aamokat said...

"The reason people believe different things is because a lot of people on the side of the disenrolled and moratorium post ridiculous things."

A lot of people do this?

I would say that the majority of people who are disenrolled and caught in the moratorium don't do this and while some do, we can't lump everyone together as doing this.

Also, since this is a public forum we are bound to get some people who are not playing fair on both sides of the issues but the alternative would be for the moderator to censur those offensive posts but I don't think most of of us would be in favor of that.

But some rouge comments don't take any credibilty away from this site as they are just the statements of a few and not the majority.

Personally, I think it is funny that we refer to Ed Burbee as Mr. Potato Head as he looks like a potato with skinny arms and legs and Mark Macarro (if all we had was a corn field, which he said) as Corny.

People could say a lot worse about them for what they have done.

To the person who mentioned the Records of Decisions, they are at about 25 to 30 pages long so it would be hard to post them here.

But I do post things sometimes that I am typing directly from some of these documents or directly from the Band's constitution and bylaws.

But maybe, time permitting, I can get to a scanner, and post some of the excerpts I quote from so people can see the sources.

'aamokat said...

I know this thread is about the banishment of John Gomez Jr but briefly I would like to touch on the disenrollments here as far as the evidence against the Hunters in particular.

The whole case rested on basically what the resident critic who posts here from time to times says and we answered those questions with the documents we turned and with some clarification from the tribe's own hired expert Dr. Johnson.

In the Record of Decision it lists current tribal members who submitted statements in support of our membership and others, all from the CPP faction, who did not support us and it referrences testimony from elders from the historical period of the reservation during Paulina Hunter's probate for her land allotment.

I think the key point is the ROD's listing of our submission of elder Antonio Ashman's testimony prior to the first written enrollment of 1978, which by the way met one of the requirments for proving tribal membership listed in the supplement page that came with the enrollment application of having a known tribal member vouch for an applicant.

The ROD merely mentions that Mr. Ashman's testimony was regarding recognition of the Hunters not that he supported us by saying that he remembered Paulina as a member of the Band.

Because if the ROD had mentioned that Ashman acknowledged us a being legitimate tribal members, then it would have thrown out their forgone conclusion of kicking us out of the tribe.

If anything would have "broken the camel's back" in our favor one would think that should have been the end of it.

The ROD also states that the enrollment committee could reject any testimony that disagreed with their conclusions based on whether the source lacked authenticity or if there were other more credible sources available.

So what was more authentic or credible; testimony from current CPP faction elders against us, some of which wasn't notarized, such as Raymond Basquez Sr, Vincent (I was in prison for child molestation) Ibanez, Gloria Wright, Yoli McCarter and about ten other CPP faction members who signed a statement against us or notarized testimony in our support from vaunted elder Antonio Ashman, Dolores Tortuga, Jose David Rodriguez, all from the historical period of the founding of the reservation, as well as current elders not from the CPP faction such as Paul and Benjamin Vasquez, Phillip Ibanez, Lucille Garbani, and Joe (Eddie) Moreno?

In addition we had notarized testimony from Norman Pico Sr and Marie Russell, also not from the CPP faction in our support that was turned in during our appeal.

I will tie this in with Mr. Gomez's circumstance in my next post.

'aamokat said...

My key point is that while people want to be objective and believe that the other side of our issues has credibility, the mere fact that John Gomez Jr. had already been banished before he even said the so called offensive comment that was used as the reason for his banishment speaks volumes.

And that is how they do everything, they stack the deck to fit their agenda.

Regarding our disenrollment, So Vince Ibanez was a more credible source than Antonio Ashman who the tribe calls a vaunted (much praised) elder on the tribe's official Web site, Pechanga.com?

In the past I we had hestitated to state who in the tribe supported us so they wouldn't become targets themselves but in reality, even though our disenrollment proceedings were supposed to be confidential, I am sure the CPP already knows who supported us and our supporters did give notarized testimony that could be used in a court of law.

Allen L. Lee said...

To anonymous,
Thanks again for the discussion.
I posted this earlier onthis thread:
"...The scope of "his own country" is broader than the concept "country of his nationality". It is not limited to nationality in a formal sense, that is, nationality acquired at birth or by conferral; it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien...."
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/hrc-gen-cmt-rtr.htm
I bring this back because while I believe some moraturium persons have "grounds' to assert political affiliation with the tribe, I do make a distinction between the "pre-existing rights" of the dis-enrolled and the "grounds" for political affiliation of moratorium persons.
Those who have pre-existing rights can not have those rights removed by any sovereign without just cause. Said rights are the sole possession of individual. Doing so is a violation by the sovereign. I can assure you that retro-active qualification of an ancestor is not just cause in any forum of rights that I have seen or know of.
Having grounds does not meet the same criteria of deprivation as a removal of existing rights to me.
There are no doubt thousands of descendants of tribal freedmen whose names appear on the Freedmen portion of the Dawes Rolls, however, many of those descendants can establish no current political affiliation with the Cherokee Nation and though can show grounds based on the 1866 Treaty, the tribe has a right in my mind to scrutinize their enrollment based on examining things other than their grounds of descendancy.
The absolute reverse is applicable for already recognized members. There is a proven and established political affiliation with a recognized member and under no circumstances is it justified to re-visit a persons legal by-blood rights through descendancy unless the person knowingly lied about a blood tie to an ancestor.
The rights of the dis-enrolled Pechanga are cut, dried, and clear for me, hence my guard shack answer. The rights of the moratorium people, though it is clear some have grounds, are subject to the right to determine membership by the tribe

'aamokat said...

Allen Lee said,

"The rights of the moratorium people, though it is clear some have grounds, are subject to the right to determine membership by the tribe"

At least three problems come up regarding the moratorium law at Pechanga.

1. People who had their applications in before the deadline are still being denied membership.

2. Adults, despite the moratorium being in place, were enrolled reportedly before the 2000 tribal elections and also within the last several years

3. The Band's constitution and bylaws under Article VIII says that the General Membership is the final authority in all matters of government and business of the Band unless stipulated otherwise in the bylaws.

So since the constitution and bylaws says under Article II that open enrollment is the first month of each year, the moratorium law itself is null and void.

So because of its unconstitutioality and its arbitrary enforcement this bogus law should be thrown out and all of the people eligible for membership who are stuck in the moratorium should be approved for membership.

But there again is the problem if a tribe decides not to follow its own constitution and/or does not fairly implement those laws, who, because of sovereignty can make them do so?

Anonymous said...

Again we go to the United States Government to determine how and why the tribe has violated their own constituion and misused and abused using sovereignty as a sword to determine the tribal membership steal lands ,from true descendents Mr allen if in fact what you say is true if the tosobols were not members and on moritorium What other reason did PECHANGA Tribal council have to banish them except to take the lands they have,what did they have to Fear,nothing but we know that they were Banished what is in the lineal descendency that pechanga is afraid of I think we already know That answer. Pechangas Federal recognition must END . Polysqwalis

Allen l. Lee said...

Anonymous
The Pechanga Band, Temecula Indian
definitions that others have brought up smacks a similar tone to the UKB, CNO dispute among Cherokees. This issue involves a "successor in interest" dispute from what was once a joined tribe of people, now separated.
That fact that the "Pechanga Band' may choose not to recognize you as one of their particular Band does not mean that you don't have a federal "successor in interest" right to be recognized as sovereign Temecula Indians. What is important in this discussion in the Cherokee forum is the shared interest in land and jurisdiction.
The Pechanga band of Temecula Indians may find that they have to share the same land with other rightfully recognized Temecula Indians who have "succesor in interest" rights from an earlier recognized tribe or people?
I think J. Gomez's tribal land concern may be valid.
The sovereign does not exist in a vacuum. All supporting entities to the sovereign, once made aware of the violations, should act accordingly, or be held equally accountable for the violations.

Anonymous said...

Allen,
How differently do you view a disenrolled person versus a moratorium person in a situation like Joe Liska? If the tribe recognizes his father as a member and membership requirements do not include having to be a minimal percentage, how could the tribe argue against his rights?

'aamokat said...

Allen Lee said,

"The Pechanga Band, Temecula Indian
definitions that others have brought up smacks a similar tone to the UKB, CNO dispute among Cherokees. This issue involves a "successor in interest" dispute from what was once a joined tribe of people, now separated."

But the Tosabols are only separated by the bogus moratorium law, which is unconstitutional but even if it wasn't, it has not been fairly enforced.

Their ancestor(s) were Temecula Indians residing on the Pechanga reservation during the historical period of the creation of the reservation so they meet the requirments for tribal membership.

They are original Temecula (Pechanga) Indians, period!

Also, they have committed no offense to be banished for yet they have been banished from the land anyway, why?

'aamokat said...

Mr. Lee you do have some very valid points though regarding Pechanga and Temecula though.

Allen L. Lee said...

I won't comment on the Liska case directly since it is current. I am curious to see how it will turn out.
Each sovereign has a mutual contract with it's citizen/members as to how they may pass on the legal right of citizenship/ membership to their descendants.
In the U.S. the parents don't have to be citizens, hence there is no contract between the parent and the sovereign,if the child is born on American soil. Soil rights or descendancy rights, sovereigns can use one or the other or both combined or something not mentioned. Contrast the U.S. soil rights with the Santa Clara Pueblo descendancy restriction for children of women who marry outside the tribe, and you can see a divergance of citizenship/membership practices.
While I agree that many of the moratorium people have excellent grounds and are highly qualified to be Pechanga members, I believe a legal right of descendancy must be clearly stated by the sovereign.
That's not to say that those in the moratorium don't possess rights of self-determination and land rights, but the right of political affiliation for those not previously granted citizenship/membership, I believe is left largely to the sovereign.
The problem I see in this phase of recovery from the termination era is that so many tribes have no idea how to recover in a just way for all that have been impacted by termination. Add to that the cultural genocide impact of Casinos( as bad if not worse then Boarding schools) and all sorts of arbitrary membership things have occured.
I look at the dis-enrolled and tribes as any other sovereign on earth. The pre-existing rights of recognized citizen/members are inherent, and can not be removed by the sovereign with-out just cause. We can change the rules about what is known as " Anchor babies" but once the child of non-citizen parents is given U.S. citizenship, we can not wait until that person is of voting age and enforce the rules retro-actively removing that persons citizenship. That I believe is a Human Rights violation and should be challenged by any sovereign that does it, including indigenous sovereigns.

Anonymous said...

The reason I asked my question related to the Liska situation is because I know there are a few different types of people that are in the moratorium, those who have a parent or immediate family member that is in the tribe, those that can trace back to a Temecula Indian but who's line is not enrolled, and those who were disenrolled but have reapplied for membership. So I was simply trying to get an understanding of what legal claim each type of person might have.

'aamokat said...

"The reason I asked my question related to the Liska situation is because I know there are a few different types of people that are in the moratorium, those who have a parent or immediate family member that is in the tribe, those that can trace back to a Temecula Indian but who's line is not enrolled, and those who were disenrolled but have reapplied for membership."

I don't know of any disenrolled people who have reapplied for membership but that being said, there is a fourth type of situation of someone being stuck in the moratorium, which explains why some immediate family members are not enrolled when, for example, a full blooded sibling is enrolled.

Reportedly the enrollment committee did not enroll a proven sibling with the same claim of membership of their brother or sister who had submitted his or her application at the same time.

It was one of the things that members of the enrollment committee who were elected in 2002, John Gomez Jr included, pointed out to the tribal council showing the enrollment committee showed malice against certain individuals or families and/or were negligent in their duties.

Also, no one has addressed the point I brought up that some moratorium people had their applications in before the deadline for the moratorium so they abided by the terms of even this bogus law but are still being denied membership.

Anonymous said...

I heard that a small group of people were recently enrolled. These were only people who had their applications in prior to the deadline.

'aamokat said...

"I heard that a small group of people were recently enrolled. These were only people who had their applications in prior to the deadline."

That would be nice if it was true but the last I heard the tribe decided not to process applications of some people who had beaten the deadline, nine, I believe.

I wonder if the tribe will pay them for the lost money they missed over the years if they have been recently enrolled?

Anonymous said...

this is not the first time pechanga has been rude and turned their back (that is indian for i dont't give shit who you are or represent) a few years ago they did the same thing to several tribes in a meeting that they (pechanga had called) no one calls them out!