Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Loss of Tribal Citizenship is WRONG and OFFENSIVE

Dear Congressional Staffers, this is something you should read up on, as you meet with terminated Indians.

I find it disconcerting that in all the years we have had mass terminations of tribal citizenships, no politician has stood up for those Indians who have been harmed by their tribe.  (See:  Like Being Raped and Going to your Rapist for Justice)

When you give it a cute moniker like “disenrollment”, it takes on the context of, say, losing you membership in the P. T. A. And that makes it simpler for a politician to take tribal money and with the phrase, “tribes can choose their own membership” they can avoid taking a closer look at what it really entails.

Take American citizenship, the U.S. Government can strip an American of citizenship for few reasons, here’s one from US CODE 1481:

7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

We are talking about treason or overthrowing the government as a serious offense. No disenrollees have threatened overthrow of their tribal government. No bearing arms against tribal councils. In Indian Country, you can lose your citizenship for simply disagreeing with the tribal council. Putting a “wrong” member on the council or speaking your mind about their business entities can get one stripped of their citizenship.

How many American’s have been stripped of their citizenship, can you name ONE? Did Christopher Boyce, who sold secrets to the Russians, or Robert Hannssen?  NO.  Has Charles Manson lost his citizenship? No. How about American terrorists who advocate death to American and sharia law? Nope, uh-uh, but in Indian Country, the number is in the THOUSANDS. We have tribes like Snoqualmie in Washington, that have stripped citizenship simply for taking a position opposite of the tribal council.

On the Pechanga Reservation in Temecula, Original Pechanga allottee descendents have had their citizenship taken away, along with voting rights, the right to health care, the right to speak at meeting, even when the situation is directly relating to them, such as water rights. It's virtual apartheid. Pechanga, headed my Mark Macarro, the subject of a recall attempt, tried to usurp the water rights of allottees, lying to congressional staffers about how many allottees were still on the reservation. Redding Rancheria even terminated 25% of their tribe, including their FIRST Tribal chairman. We have tribes like Snoqualmie in Washington, that have stripped citizenship simply for taking a position opposite of the tribal council. And the Picayune Rancheria already terminated 50% of their tribe and are looking at more.

We have politicians who turn a blind eye, because stripping citizenship comes now with a cute moniker: disenrollment. The same politicians who rightfully found the apartheid policy of sovereign country of South Africa abhorrent, now side with tribes who are practicing the same apartheid in their own districts. Equally confusing, the NAACP in CA has taken money from tribes that violate their people's civil rights. We can't get the ACLU to be interested and the Native American Rights Fund won't help those Native Americans who have lost their RIGHTS.

Politicians in CA who were vehemently appalled over neighbor state Arizona’s stricter immigration enforcement laws, going so far as to shrilly calling for boycotting that state over ‘possible’ civil rights violation, are supporting tribes who have actually stripped voting rights, health care, per capita (now totaling $500 million), elder care, educational assistance. They recently passed the Dream Act providing educational assistance to non-citizens, yet won’t stand up for actual citizens.

They tell themselves “well it’s only 9 people, or it’s only 75 people”. Yet how many does it have to be to make it wrong? 75 Redding tribal members, stripped of their citizenship is akin to 80 million Americans losing theirs. The Picayune Rancheria took away citizenship to fully 50% of their tribal people. When is it wrong, or rather “wrong enough”. Would they stand up for union members who didn’t get to vote? Or what if say, the GOP got 25% of Democrats excluded? Would it be wrong? Of course it would.

It’s past time to take it seriously and to stand up for the rights of the individual Indian.

Our government needs to do its job and stand up for the weak and defenseless. Exercising its moral outrage includes:

1. Eliminate funding for tribes who violate the rights of their people.
2. No longer take land into trust for abusive tribes
3. Place enforcement actions into the Indian Civil Rights Act

Tribes have a right to do wrong, but they shouldn’t be supported by our politicians when they do.

See more on Enterprise Rancheria disenrollments  they were rewarded with a casino by Department of Interior.
Robinson Rancheria Disenrollments

originally posted in November 2011


'aamokat said...

A tribal member who usually calls himself Anotherview may come here and say that the disenrolled from Pechanga got due process despite the fact that the same people who were the deciding votes on the enrollment committee who decided, for example, that the Hunter family was kicked out of their tribe, were very close relatives of witnesses against the family and who should have been recused from ruling on their case because of conflict of interest which violated the equal protection clause in the tribe's own constitution that forbids malice or prejudice against tribal members but they were allowed to rule on the Hunter family case anyway.

The tribal member will also likely say that the facts were not on the disenrolled's side that they were not descendants of an original tribal member, the reason the Hunters were kicked out of their tribe, even though tribal elders from the historical period of the late 1800's, when the Pechanga reservation was created testified during the probate for the Hunters land allotment in 1915 and prior to the first written enrollment of 1979 who verified that Hunter family matriarch Paulina Hunter was indeed an original tribal member. Tribal elder Antonio Ashman, called a vaunted (much praised) elder on the tribe's own official Website, for example, said in a legal notarized statement when he was asked if he remembered Paulina Hunter as a member of the band, "yes, I knew her as such" which is backed up by the fact that she was on every reservation original census record prior to her death in 1899.

The only so called evidence against the Hunters were some tribal elders alive now who were the close relatives of the deciding votes on the enrollment committee who said the Hunters never belonged which was contradicted by other current tribal elders not with a conflict of interest who said they have always considered the Hunters true tribal members.

Anotherview will also likely say, if he comments here, that the BIA never tracked Paulina Hunter, who a biased slim majority on the enrollment committee claimed wasn't an original tribal member so in effect they kicked her out so all of her descendants are now out, as a Pechanga Indian but Hunter family members have Certificate of Indian Blood Degree (CDIB) cards from the BIA that say they are Pechanga Indians.

Also, Hunter family members who have had loved ones pass away whose probate went through after their disenrollment have official Dept. of Interior documentation that identifies their deceased family members as Mission Indians, Pechanga Band.

So we have documentation and all Anotherview, if he shows up here, is him stating we are not Pechanga and that the facts were not on our side with no facts to back up what he is saying.

Another major piece of evidence that says we are Pechanga is the fact that during the 1915 probate hearings tribal elder Dolores Tortuga said when she was asked, "did you know or were you acquainted with the DECEASED PECHANGA INDIAN ALLOTTEE Paulina Hunter during her lifetime?" Tortuga answered, "yes I knew her as a neighbor when WE PECHANGA INDIANS lived at the Pauba Ranch near Temecula, California."

Anotherview will, if he shows up here, twist Tortuga's testimony to say that she was merely saying Paulina Hunter was her neighbor but it is clear that the questioner in the probate hearing was referring to Paulina Hunter as a "Pechanga Indian allottee" and that Tortuga was including her in the inclusive "we Pechanga Indians."

So Anotherview, if you comment here, I have already answered your usual unsubstantiated claims against our tribal membership so come up with something new this time.

Anonymous said...

"ANOTHER VIEW" uses smoke and mirrors to get his jaded hateful view to point. I think someone broke all his mirrors and turned up heat on the fire so there is less smoke.

'aamokat said...

The Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians (title from the preamble in the Band's constitution and bylaws) states under Article V from its constitution and bylaws the following:


So allowing enrollment committee members Ruth Masiel and Irhene Scearce to rule on a case where their brother Raymond Basquez Sr and other of their relatives were witnesses against the Hunters of Pechanga in their disenrollment case violated the equal protection clause in the Band's constitution and bylaws under Article V.

Also, Hunter family member Olivia Walls had filed disenrollment challanges against Masiel's Scearce's, and Basquez's tribal and their whole family line's membership so this is another reason Under Aritcle V why Scearce and Masiel should have been recused from the Hunter family case. If they had been recused, the Hunters would not have been disenrolled.

Reasonable people can see that it was payback for a Hunter challenging their family's tribal membership.


Also, in July 2005 the tribe had voted to outlaw disenrollment so the disenrollment procedures to move against didn't even exist as a part of tribal law as of the justification date of the petition in June 2005.

So the tribal council violated a duly passed tribal law when they allowed the Hunters to be disenrolled in March 2006 and by doing so they violated the Band's constitution under Article V by not upholding and enforcing an ordinance of the Band.

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

Anonymous said...

how about the tribal council was in DC last week asking for $300 Million dollars to build a hospital on tribal lands. A hospital I'm sure they will try to block true natives from using.

'aamokat said...

Come on Anotherview, tells again how we got due process! Not!

smokeybear said...

I think that, that "Dribble Master"...A.K.A..."Anotherview," is trying to "Recover From" his last "Beat Down." His references to "Non-Indian," when refering to "Legal Native American Indians," at "Pechanga," that were "Disenrolled," didn't wash. He "Couldn't Sell It!"... "Lies" are just that: "LIES!" His attempt to "Dispell the Truth" is what took him down, and made him the "Fool" that he is. You can "Ignore The Truth," but you can't "Change It," no matter how you try to word it. And "That" is what "Anotherview" tried to do: "Change the Truth." You "Pompous A.., It can't be done. But, then, "You Found That Out!" We can "Prove Who We Are," and, again, you can't "Dispute That!"

'aamokat said...

Smokeybear, I like to refute what Anotherview says before he says it because if he doesn't take the time to read all of the comments and he says what he usually says anyway, he really looks stupid when he states his nonsense.

White Buffalo said...

Another point of fact that gets twisted is the claim by the tribe that we Manuela Miranda decedents had our day in court, and that the courts ruled that we have no claim to membership. Well this is false, for the merits of our claim/argument were never heard by any court. The fact that even the supreme court would not listen to our case is evident that there has never been an impartial hearing of our claim against the ruling body of Pechanga by an independent body proves that there are still questions that must be answered and allegations of bias and extreme prejudice was used against our family. One last tidbit, history has written that the Temecula Band of Mission Indians who are sometimes called Pechanga once lived on the property of Manuela Miranda grandfathers land Pablo Apis the leader of the Temecula Indians. This was once written in the history of the people now if you go to the official website you will find no mention of this fact. Why is this so? I did not know that it is OK to rewrite history. Even the casino sits on a portion of my family’s land. I have read and heard on TV that the Pechanga people have been in this land for more than 10,000 years, so why does the tribe deny/hide the true history of our people? Answer me this "AnotherVeiw" "Potato"

smokeybear said...

Go for it "Cuz," I'm with you. I like to take a shot, every so often, against that S.O.B.... "Myself!"

Anonymous said...

ANOTHERVEIW May also say that the Tosobal /munoa/Rios ursua /aguirre were never interested in the pechanga people but as we know tosobal were at one time LARGEST LANDOWNERS OF PECHANGA FROM 1700S BEFORE PECHANGA WAS RENAMED but tosobol has been Banished from their land for trying to have what is rightfully theirs MANY yEARs of asking to build on the land only to be refused and turned away TOSOBAL has tried to be home and BIRTHRIGHT ONLY TO BE TURNED AWAY BEING SHUNNED ILLEGAL MORITORIUM HAS BEEN IN FORCE SINCE 1995 ALTHOUGH THERE IS ENROLLMENT EVERY YEAR CHILDREN OF MEMBERS. DESCENDENTS AND ALLOTEES FROM 8 GENERATIONS R COMPLETELY UNREGOGNIZED THE PECHANGA R DESTROYING THEIR OWN BLOOD.WHAT SAY YOU WE MUST BRING SANCTIONS

Anonymous said...

Maybe because since the Tosabols have so much land that is legitimately should be theirs, that they don't want them in because there are squatters that are on the Tosabols' land?