Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Native American HALL OF SHAME Inductees PART TWO

Last week, we inducted three into the Native American Hall of Shame and this week we have more inductees.

KEVIN WASHBURN - Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs

 “I think the question is, should tribes always be sovereign and self-governing? Or are there times when the United States should trample over their sovereignty and self-governance for some other purpose – the principle of justice or equity or something like that?”  

Tribes give up portions of sovereignty all the time, for gambling casinos and building permits. Was Secretary Washburn a supporter of South African sovereignty, or was he a supporter of divestment?   South Africa had a SOVEREIGN RIGHT to practice APARTHEID in their country, didn't they?    NOW, under his watch, tribes like the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and their "chief" Mark Macarro practice APARTHEID on their reservations.

Washburn stumbled in Senate hearings over the BIAs duty to protect the water rights of allottees. To this day, he has not met with or used emissaries to discuss water rights with Pechanga allottees.

Washburn also has not communicated with San Pasqual descendants in their quest for justice from what Al Sharpton would call "white interlopers" who took over the reservation and is keeping true San Pasqual people from their rightful place.

TEX MCDONALD - Picayune Rancheria of Chukchanski Indians

This criminal led a charge of armed men to invade the Chukchansi casino and the threatened violent act led to the closure of the casino, forcing 1,000 people out of work and onto the unemployment line. 

Tex is in 'bad company' and many Chukchanski leaders are also in the HALL of Shame. The PRCI is one of the most egregious of those tribes who have disenrolled their own people.


Anonymous said...

I believe another imposter is coyote Mark Maccaro Manuel Rios Sr would refer to the dictatorship

Anonymous said...

can someone explain this sovereignty issue. now sovereignty protects the tribes right to self govern this means their constitution and bylaws that the tribes turned in to the B.I.A. in the 70s to show that they had a governmental process in place. Now the President, congress and senators have sovereign protection but if they were to brake constitutional law they would be open for prosecution would they not. now the tribes constitutions and bylaws were brought before the tribe for all members to vote on before being submitted to the B.I.A.. Now does sovereign protection mean the person in position or the tribe constitution and bylaws. Now you have chair people diesnrolling tribal members to keep their political power and take a bigger cut of the revenue braking tribal constitutional law. Now this would be equivalent to the president or congress taking peoples citizens ships away from those that oppose them with no juristically process to protect their rights and no accountability of the president or congress for their action.

Anonymous said...

"explaining this sovereignty issue"

It only favors the Tribes with money who in turn feeds it to Congressmen and Congresswomen. The U.S. Government has set up a Legal system not a Justice system. With money it gives you power and with power you can buy anything including “sovereignty & Justice”.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

Tribal Sovereignty means that tribes are independent nations with their own lands, culture, laws, and leaders. The governing documents that tribes submitted to the BIA were necessary to establish a government to government relationship. This is much different than in the past when tribes had to ask the BIA for permission to conduct business.

Sovereign Immunity means that tribes are immune to legal actions brought against them in court. Since tribes have their own laws, they are not subject to other jurisdictions except in a limited manner, or when they waive their immunity. The entire tribe is entitled to the protections of sovereign immunity, and federal courts view the leaders as the official representatives of the tribe. In the same way that the US extends diplomatic immunity to representatives of foreign nations, it extends immunity from prosecution to tribal leaders.

Tribal leaders can not be tried in federal court for breaking the laws or violating the constitutions of their tribes. It is up to the tribal members, usually in the form of a General Council, to punish leaders that violate tribal law. So if your tribal leaders are breaking the laws of the tribe, then a majority of the members of the tribe must agree to punish the leaders in order to bring them to justice.

The BIA and the Federal Government will not interfere with these internal tribal affairs.

O Pechanga said...

South Africa was sovereign too. Yet after the CBC stood up for black south Africans under an apartheid regime, the US divested themselves from doing business with SA. Economic need trumped doing what was legal.

Here, we have the BIA attending functions at corrupt tribal enterprises, when they could start saying, WE WILL NOT ATTEND Because of your actions..

Doing the RIGHT THING, should not be so difficult.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

Unlike South Africa where economic sanctions could be imposed, tribal members have no such weapon to use against the BIA or the tribal leaders that disenroll them. The only recourse is to sue under the APA, and the standard of review is the reasonableness of the BIA decisions. Federal judges give wide latitude to the BIA decisions so it is difficult to challenge the BIA in federal court.

In addition there are lengthy time frames involved with filing appeals, obtaining final agency action, filing a complaint, getting on the docket, obtaining a decision, and then getting the BIA to act on a remand order. This is very discouraging to the victims of unfair decisions and a huge drain on their resources.

Tribal sovereignty, sovereign immunity, limited jurisdiction, APA standards, deference to tribal leaders, and apathy (or corruption) among tribal members all work against disenrollees. The deck is stacked. How do we overcome these obstacles?

We need to find better ways to present arguments and counteract the obstacles that disenrollees face. The exposure of the illegitimate nature of disenrollment, and the collusion of the BIA is an important step toward developing effective strategies. More to come...

Natasha Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hey tex how big is your asshole now big boy? Haha

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

I promised more to come, but the news is coming fast and furious, so I am going to move this up to the top. Look in the latest post regarding the Nooksack 306 for the follow up.