Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Tribal Reps from Civil Rights Violating Tribes Redding Rancheria, Pechanga and Enterprise DENIED Opportunity to Meet With President Obama

In a bit of good news regarding justice in Indian Country, know human and civil rights violators nominated to represent Indian Country in meeting with President Obama denied opportunity to attend meeting.   

Mark Macarro of Pechanga, was nominated to be the representative of the western region:   DENIED
OP BLOG Hall of Shame Member and Nominee from Enterprise Rancheria Glenda Nelson:       DENIED
The nominee from Redding Rancheria, which eliminated the Foreman Family 8 yrs ago:           DENIED


Thank You to White House Staff for DENYING violators a meeting with our President.  And CONGRATULATIONS to  ROBERT SMITH from PALA for being the west coast representative.


Anonymous said...

Good deal! Now, it's time to deny, Larry (violater) Rosenthal(rosenfal) & the rest of the violater - Ietan, the right to condemn, taunt, torment & ridicule our true tribal members & real native born blooded Indian citizen of this U. S.of A.

Anonymous said...

The people mentioned in the post shouldn't have been let in the door

Anonymous said...

Does Justice truly exist?!! Can it be? Perhaps the U.S going to intercede in the defense of natives who have had there rights revoked? If so, I will have a renewed thoughts toward the US and believe once again in our justice system.

Thank you OP for the phenomenal news!
Thank you White House staff for not meeting with these criminals!

Anonymous said...

It's a good start, Mr. President, turning down tribes that don't deserve the honor of meeting with you in a top-to-top perspective.

Don't elevate the status of these offenders.

White Buffalo said...

I am glad to hear that my Grandmothers tribe "Pala" will be in the meeting. I would love to see a newspaper article on those on the "A" list as well as the details of the meeting

Anonymous said...

White buffalo ,what is your grandmothers last name? I have family their to?

White Buffalo said...

Anonymous said...
White buffalo ,what is your grandmothers last name? I have family their to?

December 15, 2010 10:09 AM

Her name is "Francis Salinas"

'aamokat said...

It is good that Chairman Smith is our West Coast representative.

The Pala tribe, historically a Luiseno tribe, also has members who originally are from the Warner Springs, Ca area and are known as Cupeno but who were moved to the Pala reservation in 1903 after they lost their land.

So over 100 years after the fact the Luiseno at Pala are not telling their Cupeno brothers and sisters, "you aren't from here so you are all disenrolled."

That is a fine example to follow.

Compare that to what happened to the Hunters at Pechanga where because a member of their extended family put San Luis Rey tribe on a 1928 application for enrollment as a California Indian that it means the Hunters are from the San Luis Rey tribe and not Pechanga.

But the problem with that line of thought is that some of the same people who made the accusation about the Hunters not being Pechanga also had members of their extended families put San Luis Rey on 1928 applications and so did members of other families who are still tribal members.

So if the Hunters are not Pechanga, then neither are they.

By the way, using the term San Luis Rey is the same as saying someone is a Luiseno as the terms are historically interchangable so all legitimate tribal members are San Luis Rey.

In fact one of the census records during the late 1800's has the title, "Temecula Reservation-San Luis Rey Tribe."

A lot of heartache and a lot of problems could have been avoided if Pechanga had just followed the example of their Pala neighbors.

Anonymous said...

Guess mark and holly,s pull ,went down the toilets in the congress bathrooms! Your crap is starting to stink mark and nobody wants to be around it!

Anonymous said...

Mark your a racist pig, and Obama can't be part of you! Go join the KKK!


Thank You President Obama for denying corrupt individuals the opportunity to speak on the behalf of Native People. They do not deserve the right to represent us because they are trying to destroy the true image of what Native American people really are and what we stand for. We are not money hungry, racist, casino Indians. We are a people of of Respect,Honor,and Family! I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees and we who were wronged will have our Redemption!!! We Hunters are never going away! We have always been here and were not going anywhere!!! Thank you to the White House this is a step in the right direction!!! Our day in the sun is coming so Mark get out now while you have the opportunity to redeem yourself!

for ALL nations...for ALL chukchansi people said...

all my relations...

denial of the participation of pechanga, redding and enterprise in the meeting great news!!!

is there a link and/or article with all of the information in regard to those participating in the meeting available?

if so, please post...

keep fightin' the good fight!!!


'aamokat said...

Thank you to the Obama administration for not allowing people like Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro to represent Indian country.

Why, do you say, is this important to us?

Well he presided over denying us due process of law when we were disenrolled from the Pechanga tribe in 2006 so he doesn't deserve to represent Indian country to the adminstration in any way, shape, or form.

Imagine for a moment that your citizenship in your nation was being questioned and you are summoned in front of a government committee, in this case the enrollment committee of your tribe, who had among the panel sitting in judgment of your fate inviduals who had filed the initial challenge of your citizenship in the first place.

This first challege was disallowed for obvious reasons but after this close family members and the friends of those same committee members submitted statements against your citiizenship.

This time the challenge is allowed and even though you request that those committee members with a clear conflict of interest be made to be recused from ruling on your case, they are allowed to sit in judgement of you and your family's fate.

At the initial hearing in front of the government committee questioning your citizenship in your nation you are not allowed to have an attorney present to represent you and you are not allowed to have any copies of the transcripts of the proceedings so even though the committee left out key steps of the procedures in place, you cannot document this without official transcripts so it is your word against the committee's word.

Not suprisingly the committee rules against you keeping your citizenship in your nation by a slim one vote margin.

The committee consisted of six members who sat in judgement of your keeping your citizenship or not and the committee members with the clear conflict of interest were three of the committee members, all of the votes against your family, with the chair not voting as the chair only would have voted in the event of a tie.

You appeal your case to the executive branch of your government, in this case the tribal council, where one of the councilman is the son of a committee member, the nephew of another committee member, and a close relative of people who submitted statements against your citizenship so he should have been made to be recused from ruling on your appeal but he is also allowed anyway to sit in judgement of your family's fate.

Once again not suprisingly you lose the appeal of the decision to take away your citizenship by one vote.

At this appeal hearing in front of the tribal council you again were not allowed to have an attorney present with you but not only that, you were not allowed to ask any questions or to even to take any notes as note taking instruments of any kind are not allowed in the hearing room per a letter you received from the tribal council prior to the appeal hearing.

The equal protection clause of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians' constitution and bylaws under Article V, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Missions Indians, says the following:


So government officials, if you are looking in, our tribe's own constitution was violated when we were disenrolled for, among others, the above reasons.

But if a tribe doesn't follow their own rules, who can make them do so?

So we need enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA).

Anonymous said...

The enrollment committee is talking to certain families about enrollment.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mark what happen to your superior intellect, You stated "My Career just Starting" Looks as it is starting to go straight down.....Mark this is the time to remove the CANCER from Pechanga and you know what family that we are speaking of, You Know.
You better move fast because it does not look good for you.

Anonymous said...

what the heck?

'aamokat said...

Another reason the disenrollment of the Hunters on March 16, 2006 was illegal according to Pechanga's own constitution and bylaws and tribal law and Mark Macarro is culpable about what happened and should not be able to represent Indian country in Washington is because the tribe on July 17, 2005 had voted to end disenrollment as a part of tribal law and that everyone who was a tribal member as of the justification date of the petition for the new law, June 19, 2005, was to remain a tribal member.

So the disenrollment procedures no longer existed to be used to move against the Hunters when they were disenrolled.

The Mark Macarro led council claimed in its letter of March 14, 2006, just two days before the Hunters's Record of Decision informing them they were kicked out of the tribe and obviously timed so the Hunters could not respond, that the Hunters were not included in the new law, that the General Membership of the tribe could not interrupt or question the enrollment committee regarding enrollment or disenrollment, that it violated tribal legal precedent.

However there is tribal legal precedent that says just the opposite that the General Membership is in fact the final authority regarding enrollment and disenrollment because after the heirs of Rose Murphy were turned down by the enrollment committee for tribal membership, in 1986 the general membership had voted to overrule the committee to take in the Murphys as tribal members.

The Macarro led council also claimed in its March 14, 2006 letter that the petition outlawing disenrollment didn't change the enrollment requirments, using that as another reason to not include the Hunters in the new law.

But, the Hunters maintain that they do meet and have always met the requirments for tribal membership but the biased slim majority on the enrollment committee with a clear conflict of interest, the three committee members who had initiated disenrollment against the Hunters and who were closely related to witnesses against the Hunters, ignored every piece of evidence that supported the Hunters tribal membership.

One key piece of evidence the biased slim majority on the committee ignored was the notarized testimony that was taken prior to the first written enrollment of 1978 by vaunted tribal elder Antonio Ashman, called so on the Pechanga tribe's own official Web site, who said when he was asked if he remembered Hunter family martiarch Paulina Hunter as a member of the Band, replied, "Yes, I knew her as such."

So if there were any doubts that the Hunters are indeed direct desecendants of an original tribal member Mr. Ashman, an elder who had lived in the historical period of the late 1800's and who knew who was and who wasn't a member of the tribe, his testimony should have laid those doubts to rest.

Luiseno said...

There is more than one criteria to determine if a person should be enrolled or not. Being direct descendants of an original tribal member is not the only means of determining Tribal Membership.

2). Being direct descendants of an original allottee is one more means.

3). Having a Tribal Elder vouch for your family as a Tribal Members is another.

Both of which the enrollment committee admitted to as being true. Any ONE of these three reasons are evidence enough to allow membership into the Tribe according to the Tribes own constitution.

Oh wait, my bad, they (the enrollment committee) disagreed with us being direct descendants of an original tribal member, ignoring the evidence we submitted proving otherwise. But this should NOT have mattered, as any one of #2 or #3 are also reasons to grant Tribal Membership.