Thursday, May 6, 2010

Reconciling Moral Outrage at Tribes Like Pechanga, Snoqualmie, Picayune with Self Determination

I posted this way back in June 2007 and it still does apply. I hope from what you read here, you do NOT get the impression that we are against tribal gaming. That is not true. The links tell the story of what's happening at Pechanga, Snoqualmie and other reservations. Feel free to comment, they are open.

Tribal gaming has helped many tribes in CA, come out of poverty, Pechanga included. Many of the Pechanga people are uneducated and I remember they were so excited when they qualified for a Target credit card. Unfortunately, with success, greed soon follows. Instead of helping all their people, including those they placed in a moratorium hold, they looked at who they could get rid of to increase their per capita. And, unfortunately, the money hasn't made everyone happy.

But the facts are clear, most tribes have not treated their people as abominably as Pechanga, Redding, Picayune Rancheria, Snoqualmie and others have treated their people. I have expressed earlier that I am FOR expanded gaming, for those tribes that haven't gotten to the table yet.

Reconciling MORAL OUTRAGE at Pechanga Tribe with Self Determination

Here is an excellent article by Sheryl Lightfoot about how to support sovereignty issues, while not supporting the actions when they are morally repugnant, such as Pechanga's disenrollment of 25% of their tribe in order to enrich the remaining members.

Sheryl Lightfoot Article

In order to be sovereign nations, we must act like sovereign nations. But that does not mean that in order to support self-determination in principle, we need to agree with every decision of other sovereign nations. Nation-states in the international system do not always agree with the internal actions of other nation-states, yet they nearly always accept the principle of the equal sovereignty of all nation-states within the international system (with certain notable exceptions like the Iraq invasion or humanitarian interventions). When a nation-state, a group of nation-states, or private citizens of other nation-states disagree with the internal actions of another nation-state, there are a number of possible avenues of action.

First, sovereign nation-states can register a diplomatic complaint with the government of the offending nation-state. This is done all the time in the international system. The U.S. Department of State often drafts and delivers letters of protest to the diplomats and officials of other governments over areas of disagreement. Likewise, the executives of our indigenous nations have the right, if not the moral responsibility, to send letters and make phone calls of complaint directly to the executives of the Cherokee Nation, expressing their concern over the disenrollment decision. This can be done while supporting the inherent right of an indigenous nation to determine its own membership.

Another tactic which can be employed by other indigenous nations or the private citizens of other nations is the art of moral persuasion, or ''moral suasion,'' as it has also been termed. This involves a campaign of exposure and embarrassment. This tactic has most often been employed in international human rights campaigns, with the purpose being to expose the immoral government action in the media and open up international discussion in order to embarrass the target government into changing its policy to better conform to international norms. This was done in the early days of the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and has been used often by groups like Amnesty International to urge governments to stop human rights abuses.

My view is this:

As mentioned on other sites, tribal sovereignty is something that should be nurtured and cherished. Many now believe that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from Temecula, CA will be responsible for the quick erosion of sovereignty, that tribes have fought for for centuries. The question was asked, "what could be done?".

Frankly, economic sanctions of another nation, plus public embarrassment may be the only course of action that is effective. For instance, in South Africa, it was their SOVEREIGN RIGHT as a free nation to impose apartheid on their country.
What recourse did civilized countries use to bring down this hateful policy? Economic sanctions and world ridicule of the policy. No trade, no travel, no money. Final result, end of apartheid and a welcome back to South Africa into the world community.
Similarly, citizens of the United States (OP: AND California especially) can impose their own economic sanctions on the Tribal Nation of Pechanga by boycotting their nation.

Stop patronizing their casinos, hotel, restaurants and their powwows. Let them know that we do not agree with their system of denying civil rights to their people and until they follow their own tribal law, citizens of our country will NOT support their nation, but will patronize (OP: In other words, support tribal gaming elsewhere) their competitor nations.

Also, letting state and federal representatives know that we expect them not to support a nation that would treat its citizens this way, especially NOT to allow them increased monetary benefits by expanding their casino slot machines.

Readers, there are 250 members of the band that were disenrolled and 500 people who are caught in Pechanga's illegal moratorium (illegal in that SOVEREIGN nation, against the sovereign nation of Pechanga's own constitution) Pechanga and its chairman, Mark Macarro deserves no benefit from violations of their laws and against citizens of the United States.

Please ask your friends to read my blog and friends, please let me know your opinion by posting comments.


Anonymous said...

Thank-you, thank-you for your blog and re-posting this article. And thank-you very much for remembering the Snoqualmie! My people are suffering at the hands of a corrupt government and are not receiving a single service or the help our elders and young children need.

Anyone who complains or dares to go up against them immediately get threatened or their enrollment status moved to "pending" or outright disenrolled without due process of any kind.

Since their "reign of terror" when they took illegal control of our elected government with the help of the BIA in 2007, over 80 people have been disenrolled from our tribe. All services have been stopped due to their mismanagement and corruption. At any meeting with the tribal members they hire armed guards to just let in who they want. These are not the ways of the Ancestors!

O Pechanga said...

I realize it may sound like we are repeating old news, but we do have more new readers every day, thanks to our friends and family who share this blog with our facebook and my space pages.

We know that new eyes see it and it will look fresh to them.

We must keep telling the story.

Anonymous said...

Please know, Dear Reader, that Pechanga removed the non-members simply because, once challenged as to their membership credentials, they could not prove tribal membership. The non-members did not have the facts on their side. In turn, the enrollment committee terminated the enrollment of these non-members. This action conformed the membership roll to the membership criteria. The non-members cannot accept this outcome, and years later still bemoan their fate, while they lash out at others and mislead the public. The non-members wallow in negativity. Let us hope for their sake, the non-members one day soon turn their faces to the sunlight, to enjoy their daily lives as Americans.

White Buffalo said...

From Anonyms, post of May 6, 2010 5:20 PM

"Let us hope for their sake, the non-members one day soon turn their faces to the sunlight, to enjoy their daily lives as Americans."

This is part of the new tactic that the council has adopted. Instead of debating the facts of who is right and wrong. It is my opinion that the tribe's lawyers have instructed the tribe to use this form of deception to turn the argument away from the truth and make it appear that we are the ones who wrong them. A perfect smoke screen to hide behind we lose public support and they win.

O Pechanga said...

Here's the challenge to Hunter credentials:

There is a Paulina Hunter from Ohio and we believe this is the same Paulina Hunter from Pechanga.

Uh, what? That's it?

Many thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours from Pechanga to pay for a search from the MOST RESPECTED Educator of Indian Ancestry in the state and he proves that Paulina Hunter is an original Pechanga Temecula Person.

That PROVED we were Pechanga, not to mention all the certified documents we had that backed up Pechanga's own search.

So, that LIE is beaten back easily. Now, maybe they can explain how the disenrollment committee could find otherwise?

Luiseno said...

"Pechanga removed the non-members simply because, once challenged as to their membership credentials, they could not prove tribal membership."

This is such a DUMB statement, as this was not even a point of contention, we were already members, out membership was NOT questioned, after al how could we be unenrolled if we weren't members in the first place.

"they lash out at others and mislead the public."

Mislead the public with provable FACTS, while he uses hearsay and rumor as his basis. I have over 10 pounds of certified documents proving my case, where is his proof?

'aamokat said...

How come our anonymous critic doesn't try to argue specific issues anymore?

So you are not trying to say we got due process of law anymore?

I have asked you several times to explain how that happened when close family members of people who submitted and/or signed statements against our tribal membership were allowed to rule on our disenrollment cases, a violation of Article V of the Band's constitution and bylaws forbidding malice or predjudice against tribal members.

Again, explain how allowing Irhene Scearce and Ruth Masiel, sisters of Raymond Basquez Sr who submitted a statement against our membership and who is also the uncle of Andrew Masiel Sr, who sat judgement of our appeal to the tribal council was fair and impartial.

And Mr. Basquez was not the only close relative of Scearce, R Masiel, and A Masiel who submitted and/or signed statements against our membership.

And that isn't even the only reason that biased enrollment committee members should have been made to step aside from sitting in judgement of my family as one of our family members was one of the people who made allegations alerting the tribal council of wrongdoing by the above named enrollment committee members as well as against committee member Francis Miranda, who by the way also had a family member sign a statement against our membership.

Can we say retaliation against our family?

So tribal hack answer my questions already!

Any fair legal forum would have thrown out our disenrollment on the basis of unfair treatment by what I have outline here alone let alone the other reasons our disenrollments were unlawful according to the Band's own laws.


From the Pechanga Constitution and Bylaws


P.S. the evidence was at least a minimum of 90 percent in our favor, even Chairman Mark Macarro acknowledged that in the KNBC Without a Tribe news segment.

'aamokat said...

Anonymous of May 6, 2010 5:20 PM said:

"that Pechanga removed the non- members simply because, once challenged as to their membership credentials, they could not prove tribal membership. The non-members did not have the facts on their side. In turn, the enrollment committee terminated the enrollment of these non-members. This action conformed the membership roll to the membership criteria."

So why did Vincent Ibanez, Ruth Masiel, Francis Miranda, and Raymone Basquez Sr, while serving on the enrollment committee during open enrollment years before the casino, sign date stamped official approval letters and enrollment cards of Hunter family members when we were first enrolled and then turn around and submit statements against our tribal membership stating that we have never been recognized years later in 2006 or vote against our membership while still serving on the committee?

What I am saying here is documented!

So some of the same people who voted us into the tribe got us out of the tribe when we were disenrolled.

So did they commit fraud by enrolling us in the first place or did they lie when we were disenrolled?

White Buffalo, you might be right about tribal members being told not to argue specfics anymore because the more the facts get out there, the more we chisel away at the injustices.

Tribal hack, if what we are saying isn't true, then why don't we get sued for what we say?

Anonymous said...

The record of decision in the Hunter case states because a common ancestor put his grandparents were from the San Luis Rey tribe in 1928; this somehow disqualified their membership at Pechanga.

The enrollment committee chose not to go with the findings of their own hired Anthropologist, and many certified, notarized depositions and statements of current Pechanga elders and elders who were alive in the 1800's when the Temecula Indians were evicted from Temecula, who affirmed Paulina Hunter as a Pechanga Indian.

Paulina Hunter lived in the Temecula village (Pauba Ranch) prior to the 1875 eviction.
Paulina Hunter was allotted 20 acres as head of household when Pechanga reservation was established 1882.
53 descendants of Paulina Hunter formally enrolled at Pechanga in 1978 under the Pechanga constitution and bylaws of the Pechanga Band.
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act passed by congress in 1988, the same year the Pechanga band adopted the disenrollment procedures.
In 2006 the enrollment committee disenrolled 90 adult Members that descend from Paulina Hunter.
Record of decision said that San Luis Rey Indians are a separate band of Indians not Pechanga Indian.

Anonymous said...

How do we not qualify for membership, when we proved unbroken lineal descent from an original Temecula/Pechanga person from the 1800’s? 1978 Constitution and Bylaws of the Temecula Band of LuiseƱo Mission Indians (Pechanga) clearly list the criteria for Membership.

O Pechanga said...

The Anonymous poster uses the:

A LIE is as good as the truth, if you can get someone to believe it approach.

stand your ground said...

Since the Hunters where proven to be at least 90percent Temecula Indians from the Pechanga Tribe,
which Mark Macarro stated [on the video without a tribe] then why dont you bring up the fact that HE, MACARRO, IS NOT EVEN UP TO 90PERCENT TEMECULA INDIAN, that corrupt hypocrite should be in prison for misrepresenting himself
as a true original pechanga.

'aamokat said...

The enrollment committee claimed in its Record of Decision against the Hunters (ROD) dated March 16, 2006 that because Pio Pico, around 1834, became major-domo of San Luis Rey and then later gained partial control of Rancho Temecula that there were Indians of San Luis Rey at Temecula and that distiguishd them from Temecula Indians.

What do they think the term Luiseno means?

Also, the official name of the tribe is the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians.

For those who don't know, the term Luiseno means the Indians of San Luis Rey so all current tribal members are supposed to be San Luis Rey.

By the way, the reasoning behind labeling the Hunters San Luis Rey was because some Hunter family members put San Luis Rey tribe on 1928 enrollment applications as California Indians never mind that other Hunter family members put Pechanga and that extended family members of enrollment committee members who voted the Hunters out of the tribe also put San Luis Rey on their 1928 applications.

Clearly historically the terms were interchangable.

But if the process is fair we should be reinstated or they should be disenrolled!

Finally, we never found out that the San Luis Rey referrence in 1928applications was a problem until the ROD against us.

Sections 4 and 5 of the disenrollment procedures, which by the way no longer existed in 2006 after the tribe outlawed disenrollment in 2005, stated that in both the letter to tribal members informing them the disenrollment process was being intiated against them and also at the initial meeting with the enrollment committee that the committee had to SPECIFICALLY state why the documenation that was used to enroll them wasn't sufficient to prove tribal membership.

So even the weak so called case against the Hunters was never presented against us until we were disenrolled.

Still another reason, in addition to biased committee and council members being allowed to rule on our case, that our disenrollments are null and void.

So tribal hack how again were we given due process of law?

Are you going to answer me this time?

'aamokat said...

Stand your Ground said:

"Since the Hunters where proven to be at least 90percent Temecula Indians from the Pechanga Tribe,
which Mark Macarro stated [on the video without a tribe] then why dont you bring up the fact that HE, MACARRO, IS NOT EVEN UP TO 90PERCENT TEMECULA INDIAN, that corrupt hypocrite should be in prison for misrepresenting himself
as a true original pechanga."

The marriage record from the San Luis Rey Mission of Macarro ancestor Juan Macarro to Isabel Tapia in the 1890's says that Juan M. was from Pauma.

So technically we the Hunters are more Pechanga than the Macarros are.

Ironically Isabel was the daughter of Leona Kengish who was from the same clan as Paulina Hunter's grandmother Restituta.

So the Macarros of today owe their tribal membership from being related to us the Hunters!

So I do think the Macarros are descendants of Temecula Indians but not through the Macarro line.

stand your ground said...

So, if he is of the Hunter lineage, then why is he still enrolled.

Pechanga Enrollment Committee,
get rid of this CORRUPPT HYPOCRITE

stand your ground said...

And even if he is not Hunter, he is not 90percent Temecula/Pechanga am I right?
If so then he is only playing politics, he was afraid of being voted out, so he terminates the REAL TEMECULA INDIANS OF THE PECHANGA TRIBE.

stand your ground said...

He, along with our willing and corrupt politicals in Sacramento, have done damgage to the sovereign nation of Pechanga.
Their reputation has been ruined, and it's sliding further and further down the mudhill.

O Pechanga said...

Exercising your moral outrage means to quit patronizing a business like Pechanga or the many other casino-tribes that have hurt their people.

But also, it means spreading the word, telling as many people as possible.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Is there a page that lists the Pechanga Tribal Council members family tree that was used for their enrollment. I think that would be iteresting. Include any adopted member too, just to show the public what hypocrites those people are. Also, didn't your people have their Indian names on the old rolls? Mr. Macarro needs to be exposed - put his enrollment paper on-line, research him and see what you find.

Anonymous said...

Do it!

'aamokat said...

Anonymous of May 7, 2010 10:46 AM said:

"Wow! Is there a page that lists the Pechanga Tribal Council members family tree that was used for their enrollment."

One family that couldn't "cut the mustard" is likely the Masiel/Basquez line.

They claim their linage through Josepha Garcia but Ruth Masiel, Raymond Basquez, Irhene Scearce etc's mother Francisca Leyvas not only wasn't listed with her mother the year of her birth in 1898, but she wasn't even on the Pechanga reservation census records until she was almost four years old in 1902 and even then she was not listed with Josepha and she wasn't listed with her until later.

Plus Josehpa herself was listed as married to Felipe Cascara in the census records of the 1890's not to Vincente Leyvas, Francisca's father, who wasn't a Temecula Indian and who Josehpa was married to after 1900.

So it appears Francisca could have been Josepha's step daughter which would make the Masiel/Basquez line not blood of the tribe.

I think Mr. Allen Lee would probably comment that even they should not be held accountable for their ancestor if they have been associated with the tribe for a long time.

However, even though when the disenrollment frenzy started I was in favor of everyone who was in the tribe to stay in the tribe and to just let the matter drop, since it was the Masiel/Basquez family who were among the ringleaders of the pro disenrollment movement and they moved against true tribal members, they or at least their family members who participated in the paper genocide, should be disenrolled.

So I could see punishing some of them but not the whole line for them harming long time tribal members in good standing.

'aamokat said...

I guess I was showing compassion for people who had nothing to do with our disenrollment as some of the Masiels and Basquez are not bad people and they can't help who they are related to.

Of course, I understand the argument that if they don't belong, then they don't belong.

Allen L. Lee said...

Nothing wrong with pointing out the hypocracy 'aamokat. Speak your mind, I'm listening.

Anonymous said...

Allen L. Lee is a heehaw. It is apparent he just is muddling; He spews rubbish to legitimize Apis Line.

Apis, Hoppish is just snooker meant to confuse; muddle, muddle, muddle;aka b.s!

Don't be shy...present CIBD!

Anonymous said...

The only snooker is people who do not understand California history. Several documentations collaborate Mr. Lees comments. Out lander has it right also. CDIB records are a real snooker too. It all depends on who was running the BIA at the time it was generated. That's why several people in the same family line have differences on their CDIB cards. Instead of just shunning Apis, why don't you come out with some solid facts that dispute it. Any anthropologist agrees with the Apis line on their history, and have concluded that they are Luiseno Indians.

Luiseno said...

CIB cards = white mans authoritative stamp of approval, I guess if you have to have the white man stand up for you and authorize your Indian heritage, then more power to you.

As for myself, I will count on my own knowledge, family history and the word of mouth of my Indian Elders to stand up for my heritage (and they have). I have always been offended at the thought of having the same white mans government determine who is who, and how much Indian they are, this same government that helped destroy and killed off my people.

Allen L. Lee said...

On Mothers Day you use that word. Now look what you did, you made me cry. Can you hear me crying? Are you satisfied now?
I've got to go now. It's just to painful.

Anonymous said...

Apis are not eligible to be legally enrolled.

United States
Federal jurisdiction

Apis opportunist

Pico; anticipating U.S. takeover continued dirty tricks to continue stealing land that belonged to Indians of various sectors of California.

Apis descendants are continuing legacy of theft by fraud.

Shameless b.s.. CIBD!

All Pio Pico agents of oppression and thefts not eligible to be legally enrolled.

Gomez is dishonest to present himself and other descendants as Pechanga. They are continuing the fraud.

Anonymous said...

Hello, CDIB cards mean nothing. I have one, my mom has one and my children have one. Still not enrolled in the tribe I am entitled to belong in.

What is your hoohaw about presenting one?

Allen L. Lee said...

O.K. anonymous Sno...!
It's just too painful. I can't even spell out the whole word.
You demonstrate my point of intending to punish a descendant for the status of a deceased ancestor. Descendants of Pablo Apis were and according to O.P. still are members of the tribe.
Garra uprising and resistance reminds me of the Cherokee "Tsali" who was also executed for oppossing American conquest.
I mention this because it point to a flaw in your reasoning, which is how Garra was able to rally Native peoples who were not part of his tribe to work as one.
Indigenous people of California do not appear to have lived as isolated tribes before, during or after the forced re-location to Pechanga. More importantly they could not live as isolates during Spanish, Mexican, or American domination.
I understand the motive to establish a base roll on those people that lived in the forced relocation community, but even after this event family and kinship ties changed and adapted with the socio-political atmosphere of the times.
Pablo Apis as a child was assimilated into the Mission. This could have happened by force or volunatry, I don't know, but he continued to be an assimilationist during the American period though not so much during the Mexican period, being jailed by Pio Pico for his support of the Mission.
Indigenous assimilationist did what the could in the face of two waves of genocide in California. S.F. Cook has some staggering numbers about the Indigenous population decline due to Spanish and American conquest.
To blame the descendants of people whom you have already recognized as citizens for the actions of their ancestors I feel is wrong.

'aamokat said...

Anonymous May 9, 2010 7:12 PM said:

"All Pio Pico agents of oppression and thefts not eligible to be legally enrolled."

If that is the case, then why are there a lot of Apis descendants still enrolled in the tribe and why wasn't it used against the Manuela Miranda descendants during their disenrollment proceedings?

Tha Apis connection wasn't even part of the case against the M. Mirandas as their disenrollment was based on that as a young child of five years old her mother died and she was forced to move in with a relative.

My question is why after over 125 years did the tribe take it out on a young girl's descendants who had, through no fault of her own, lost her mother and who while growing up and as an adult still kept in close contact with her people and who obviously was still considered part of the tribe?

Very cold hearted and very greedy of them to do so.

And why were the descendants of her sibling Candalaria Nesecat Flores, who also wasn't living at Pechanga during the time the reservation was created and who M. Miranda moved in with after the death of her mother, cleared from disenrollment?

Can we say Malice and Predjudice against the M. Miranda descendants?

Remember, Article V of the Band's constitution and bylaws forbids this.

Anonymous said...

ALL Apis descendants enrolled by fraud; those still illegally enrolled are continuing theft.

'aamokat said...

Mr. Lee, but what about descendants of Francisca Leyvas, who was likely a step daughter of a tribal member and not blood of the tribe, namely the Masiel/Basquez family, moving against people with a blood connection?

Shouldn't they be tossed out or at least those of them who perpetrated the paper genocide?

I remember during the discussion about disenrollment at tribal membership meetings that I argued that everyone who was in the tribe should remain in the tribe but one of my elders said that if people really don't belong, then they don't belong and they should be disenrolled.

Maybe he was right after all?

And maybe that is why my family was targetted because they really don't belong?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure step children should really be included. However, if you're talking about step child from back in the early 1800s, I assuming that those children would be adopted in the "Indian way". I think there is a major difference between how the tribe functioned 200 years ago vs. how they function now or even 100 years ago.

'aamokat said...

But addition to maybe (I think maybe is more accurate then what I said in my previous posts-likely) being the step daughter of Josepha Garcia, Francisca Leyvas reportedly had conflicting 1928 applications for enrollment as a California Indian and three different per capita applications with similar names for a small payment in the 1950's.

The BIA sent her a letter that she could only have one payment and use one name.

So if her family are enrolled under fraud, then Mr. Lee, wouldn't even you agree that they should have been disenrolled?

Plus, their disenrollment case was taken out of order of when it was filed, ahead of other families who ended up being disenrolled and they were cleared by less than a legal quorum of the enrollment committee.

Add on the fact that their family members were reinstated to the enrollment committee in time to vote us out of the tribe and they were directly related to people who submitted and/or signed statements against our membership, clear conflict of interest.

So their membership credentials to this day are still suspect.

So again tribal hack, how again did we get due process of law.