Sunday, January 27, 2008

No on Expanded Gaming: California Congress, Time to Apologize and Come Out Against the Propositions

To all our Elected Congress in California:

We are just over three weeks away from our February 5th vote on expanded gaming in California. It's just enough time for all of you who voted for these compacts to stand up and say:

"We're sorry. We made a mistake. Vote No and give us a chance to fix it."
You must know that you have done wrong by the people of California. You have given way too much away, in terms of gaming revenues to tribes that have a monopoly on slot machines. You did not make the tribes pay for the privelege of having that monopoly. The people of CA, 3 million strong, had to act, via a referendum to halt your mistakes from becoming a reality.
Stand up, right now and let the people know that you will do better by us next time. You will gain the environmental needs, you will get enforcement capability, you will gain audit power, on OUR terms, you will gain civil rights for all native Americans that the tribes have disenrolled or kept out in moratoriums and you will gain a much higher percentage of the net win, after a better agreement of what net win means. Compare the list above, to what you got in these compacts and see which is better for California.
It's better to admit that you allowed yourselves to see a small amount of money, but blinded yourselves to the mint of funds that could be available to our people.
Here are wonderful words from Sheila Kuehl that should be a guide to your conscience.
I'll just rise once on all of these. I'm going to vote no on all the compacts with the exception of the Yurok compact, and I'll tell you why.
Many years ago when we asked to begin to ratify these compacts, it was a very, very good thing for the tribes. I didn't think it was a very good thing for California, because gambling is never a good thing for a state or a nation. It eats away, it's an addiction, and so to sort of compromise, we said, well this is really going to help these poor tribes get on their feet. And boy, did it.

They're so on their feet that billions of dollars are being made every year. Well, good for them. But I can't vote for an expansion of gambling. I can't vote for organizations that now refuse to take care of their workers in any fair way that we require of virtually everyone else in the state.
I can't vote for a compact that says, "we'll; give you money state if you vote for this compact, but we won't allow you to come into see if we are giving you the right amount of money."
I can't vote for compacts for tribes that aren't even sharing with all of their own members the largess that they win off the gambling addiction that they win off the gambling addiction of those who go to the clubs. OP: See or

So I would encourage any of you who agree with any of those points to stand up and say no to the expansion of gambling in the state, to stand up and say no to these tribes that have indeed pulled themselves up by our bootstraps. And to virtually in the future continue to say no to this expansion.
Congresspeople, The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians is one of the worst violators of civil rights in this state, along with Chukchansi. Yet, you, have not spoken out against it. You act like disenrollment is akin to getting booted from the PTA. Go to and LEARN about what is happening. Aren't you embarrassed for not standing up for civil rights?
RENOUNCE the compacts, and I'll spotlight you here and on Tell us you are now revisiting your choice and want us to know about it. DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Pechanga Chairman Macarro AGAIN Caught Lying

OP: This time it's in the latest commercial that he's fronting.

From John Gomez, AIRRO:

The Big 4 Tribes sent out a new bi-lingual mailer asking California voters to vote Yes on their sweetheart deals. The mailer, entitled "Sharing with those in need" states that the gaming tribes will share tens of millions of dollars with tribes that have little or no gaming revenue. In fact, Mark Macarro claims that "limited gaming... has brought prosperity to our people...lifting us out of poverty..." Macarro goes on to state that ".., we believe all members of our sovereign nations should share in our prosperity."

This all sounds warm and fuzzy, and if it were true, Indian Gaming in California could be considered a success. Unfortunately, the claims made in the new mailer are misrepresentations of the actual circumstances surrounding the Big 4 deals.

Currently, non-gaming tribes receive $1.1 million a year under the 1999 compacts signed with the State. However, the Big 4 deals would provide billions of dollars for the Big 4 tribes over the life of the agreements, and the non-gaming tribes will not get a penny more than what was already allocated in the 1999 compacts. You see, the new deals fail to provide additional funding for non-gaming tribes. The rich get richer, and the poorer, smaller tribes make do with less.

And, while it is true that the members of the Big 4 tribes would prosper immensely, Macarro failed to state that the number of members in his own tribe, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, has been reduced drastically since Props 5 and 1A allowed for gaming on California Indian reservations. In 2004 and 2006, just prior to tribal elections in which Macarro ran for re-election as Tribal Chair, a total of nearly 300 members were kicked out of the tribe.

As a result, Macarro and his cronies won their re-election bids and all remaining members of the tribe saw their per capita payments increase from $15,000 per month to the nearly $40,000 per month they receive now. While Macarro and his followers prosper, those who were kicked out of the tribe have been denied medical care, elder and child benefits, and education assistance that were provided based on their status as tribal members. Most must now avail themselves of State and federal government programs at tax payer expense.

Membership does indeed have its privileges, and, as far as I can tell, those who would actually benefit from these deals are members of the Big 4 tribes themselves- a small number of California Indians which, based on the actions of Macarro and his cronies, is getting smaller.

OP: In KNBC's WITHOUT A TRIBE, Macarro was caught lying in the FIRST 15 seconds of the piece. During a General Meeting of the Temecula Band, Macarro, is clarifying a petition brought forth by CNIGA President Anthony Miranda to stop all disenrollment activities, he said, when asked if this included the Hunter Family, "ALL MEANS ALL" and yet, he conspired with his tribal council to unconstitutionally eliminate the Hunter family. (Pechanga Constitution and Bylaws.

Friday, January 25, 2008

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS to Big 4 Tribes while others languish in Poverty

WHY aren't more tribes doing better NOW? Revenue sharing trust is not doing as well as Pechanga would have you believe.

This is NOT what voters intended. Not ONE of the four propositions will give MORE to tribes without casinos!


Media Breakfast Club of Los Angeles backs up

This is excellent news! The MBC of Los Angeles will back up and their editorial against Propositions 94-97! The Filipino American community will be using this election to exercise their political clout in getting both Hillary Clinton elected as California's nominee for the Democratic party AND the expanded gaming propositions voted down.

Media Breakfast Club Follows MabuhayRadio and Endorses the “No” Votes on Props. 94, 95, 96 and 97

The Media Breakfast Club (MBC) of Los Angeles agreed to back up the editorial of the in regard to the Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. During the MBC’s 916th meeting at the FACLA Social Hall yesterday morning, the members and guests unanimously adopted the common stand of casting “No” votes on the said propositions.
Bobby M. Reyes, the editor, is also the MBC founder. He introduced a resolution calling for the “No” votes on the four propositions involving four American-Indian casino operators in Southern California.

The issues were discussed at the FACLA, which is the acronym for the Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles, the oldest Filipino-American organization that was founded in 1945.
Sir Al Aquino, the present chapter commander of the Order of the Knights of Rizal, was the moderator at the MBC meeting. Mr. Aquino, who is also the vice mayor of the Philippine Town, Inc., presented his arguments that backed up Mr. Reyes’ resolution.
Edward Hasal, one of the guests at the MBC meeting, pledged to support the “No” votes on the four Indian-casino propositions. He asked also the MBC-meeting participants to vote "No” on Proposition 93. Mr. Hasal is the marketing director and senior health-plan specialist of the Option Plus Insurance Services, Inc. He attended the MBC meeting to present the services of his company.
Sir Henry von Seyfried, the MBC co-chairman, also took up the cudgels for the opposition against Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. Mr. Von Seyfried, the first German-American commander of the Order of the Knights of Rizal, has been adopted by the MBC as an honorary Filipino in 2001. He was also a former post commander of the American Legion, Manila Post 464. Sir Henry said that he was campaigning against the four propositions not only with his German-American friends but also among his Filipino-American contacts.
Mr. Reyes agreed also to send the group’s “No” vote on the said four American-Indian propositions by e-mail to the thousands of Filipino-American screen names in California that the has in its database. The MBC participants also decided to lobby the thousands of FACLA members, especially its senior-citizen members, to vote against the said propositions. # # #

MABUHAY RADIO and the Media Breakfast Club, THANK YOU on behalf of over 3,000 Native Americans who have been disenrolled by their tribes, so that the remaining members can become even richer!


We will prepare a third article about the fight against the obvious discriminatory practice of the Pechanga ruling clique in ousting many of its long-time members. We are finishing the research and perhaps with its release, we will begin a Filipino-led boycott of the Pechanga casino. We compare the said discriminatory practice to Hitler's Aryan-Race policy. You may be able to read more information about the issues mentioned in this e-mail at

Thursday, January 24, 2008

NO on Prop. 94 95 96 97: These Propositions Aren't Worth the Gamble

Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle comes out against propositions 94-97.

These propositions really aren't worth the gamble

By Debra J. Saunders

San Francisco Chronicle
January 23, 2008 6:00 AM

"Protect hundreds of millions of dollars each year in our state budget by voting yes on Prop. 94, 95, 96 and 97," reads the ballot argument signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Basically, supporters are urging voters to approve Indian "gaming" compacts with four tribes because the new pacts, which would allow the big four tribal casinos to add 17,000 slot machines, would put more money in the state budget.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, each measure is expected to increase state revenues annually "probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030."
The whole exercise begs the question: If voters are supposed to approve more gambling to get more tax money, why not legalize gambling for everyone and really rake in the big bucks?
Why should members of four rich tribes enjoy a monopoly on new slots?
If Californians want more gambling to provide easy money for a strapped state government, think of all the dough to be made by opening up gambling outside of tribal lands.

Click the link above for the rest. But think of this: IF we don't get the $9 Billion they say, then we shouldn't vote for it. The LAO says we WON'T. So, we vote NO.

Pechanga Rolls Snake Eyes: NO on Prop. 94-97

The tribes aren't getting very far for all their millions trying to convince us that the deal the DID NOT want us to vote on, is now good for us.

Field Poll: Props. 94-97 Roll Snake Eyes

January 24th, 2008 by No Unfair Deals

With less than two weeks to go, the Field Poll released today finds the Big 4 tribes are betting the house on their gambling deals, and rolling snake eyes so far.Despite $82 million worth of campaign to push these deals, Field’s finding: 42% yes – 37% no, confirms what we’ve seen as well, the more voters know about these deals, the less they like them.

As voters find out that what we’re really voting on – 17,000 new slot machines, one of the largest expansions of gambling ever, for the benefit of just four wealthy tribes – that the tribes and only the tribes decide how much money they will give the state – and that these deals come at the expense of other smaller tribes, the surrounding communities and the workers at the Big 4 casinos – they’re finding plenty of reasons to vote no.

When Californians originally voted to approve Indian gaming, we didn’t intend to make four wealthy tribes, wealthier still. We didn’t intend to give just four tribes control over a third of all Indian gaming. And we didn’t intend to give all that to the Big 4 tribes – in exchange for a financial drop in the bucket, a contribution of less than one half of one percent of the General Fund.

These sweetheart deals promise us the moon. A closer look is showing voters that all these deals actually deliver is big money to the Big 4. And on Election Day, we think voters will send these compacts back to Sacramento for a new deal.

This is the critical part California. A NO vote does NOT mean that Tribal Gaming will end, it means that, the Big FOUR tribes will have to settle for the HUNDRED$ of MILLION$ they are making now, until they negotiate a deal that is better for Californians. You can't believe that the tribes won't come back and tighten up the details to get it approved. There are only 1800 tribal members since Pechanga kicked out 25% and are keeping out 4-500 more via an unconstitutional moratorum (against the TRIBE'S Constitution and Bylaws). They will take a deal where the state gets more, say 25% on all slots and better auditing and less ambiguous language. Because the tribes at 25% will still get $28 BILLION or $15.5 million EACH.

Vote NO.

LATimes: Yes on Gaming Expansion and My Takedown

The Los Angeles Times gives a Yes endorsement on Expanded Gaming.

Here is my analysis of the LATimes editorial which is YES on Props. 94, 95, 96, 97

In an amazingly well thought out, well sourced and compelling editorial, the LATimes gives its endorsement on expanded gaming. Here is their convincing argument conveniently displayed under a YES on Expanded Gaming Banner, paid for by the Big 4 Tribes: There is no reason for the state to back out. Vote yes on Proposition 94, 95, 96 and 97.

OP: The state is NOT backing out. The people of California are having their say. While the ballot measure may have been sponsored by anti-expansion funds, 3,000,000 Californians signed the petitions. It’s OUR propositions now, not horse tracks and other tribes. And, remember, there are over 3,000 Indians who have been forcibly removed from their tribes since the advent of Indian Gaming, by these tribes and others, this is a civil rights issue, as Pechanga should NOT be rewarded for violating the rights of their people.

LAT: All four already were covered by compacts that grant them and other tribes exclusive rights to operate slot machines in California.

OP: So? This is completely different and a NO vote will not change the compacts that the tribes are currently working under. These four tribes will continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars each year. A no vote will not allow an expansion which will make these four tribes the Wal-Mart of gaming.

LAT:The new agreements expand the number of machines and, the tribes expect, the amount of revenue they take in; the agreements provide that 15% to 25% of the take, depending on a complex formula, will be remitted to the state.

OP: A better compact would clearly spell out the formula as to how we get paid. The state should be clear. And, if the state taxes the lottery at 83%, how can they claim that 15% is a good deal? A better deal for the state would be to collect 25-40% of the next 3,000 machines, and reduce that for the next level of machines. We should get more money up front, and if the tribes feel that the extra machines (up to 7,500) are so profitable, let them have those extra at a reduced cost.

LAT: Predictions that the state will reap more than $9 billion from these agreements may be on the rosy side because they are based on assumptions that more gamblers with more money to spend will flock to reservations.

OP: MAY BE on the rosy side? The Legislative Analyst said they will NOT meet these numbers. So then, what is the real number? Should we as voters say, “well I know they say $9 billion, but that isn’t true, so we should vote YES anyway? I think not. For the state to get $9 billion, for our 33,000,000 people, the tribes will get $36 BILLION for its 1800 people! It’s 1800 because the Pechanga tribe has thrown out 25% of their tribe and are keeping another large percentage out via an illegal moratorium. (Against the tribes own constitution and bylaws)

LAT Still, opponents are overplaying their hand. They claim that the tribes have exclusive control over how much to send the state. Not true. The State Gaming Agency will audit each quarterly payment, and although The Times would prefer those audits to be publicly available, we find the audit and dispute procedures acceptable.

OP: As a sovereign government, the tribes can and HAVE kept auditors out. They also have control over what the auditors will get. “Two sets of books?” And THIS STORY says there are still questions of payments

LAT: Voters would be foolish to believe that gambling will rescue the state from its perpetual fiscal crises.

OP: Then why in their first commercials, did the Big 4 tribes insinuate that these deals would wipe out our deficit? They won’t, only being a half-penny’s worth to our budget, while increasing the social ills to our citizens. And besides, there is a Bush recession coming. Still think that the people will have all this money to spend on gambling? And there is still the unanwered questions as to what happened to the compacts when they were sent to the Feds. It smells fishy.
See Captains Quarters for more

LAT: But it does bring in revenue while also bringing much-needed wealth to impoverished indigenous Californians

OP: Don’t make me laugh. The Pechanga Indians are currently making $40,000 per month, that’s $480, 000 per year, which could TRIPLE thanks to them taking away per capita from the 25% of their tribe that was eliminated. And, the tribe is keeping rightful members out, via an unconstitutional (Pechanga Constitutions) moratorium. Also, the Pechanga tribe, among others have tried to keep smaller tribes from getting compacts. Ask yourselves this question: Who will gain more power with our legislators, rich tribes getting richer, or impoverished tribes waiting for their chance at the table?

Vote NO to Pechanga and NO to Expanded Gaming.

Please see these sites to learn more:


As the awareness of the gambling expansion propositions, that give entirely too much of California's money away to four tribes grows to 70%, more newpapers come to the side of NO on Pechanga and NO to expanded gambling.

Here is part of the San Jose Mercury's editorial:

It's real money, but a small percentage of the state's current $14.5 billion budget shortfall. Overall, income from the compacts would be no more than half of 1 percent of the budget.
For the state to get $200 million, Californians will have to lose more than $800 million at the slots. Some might have been lost in Las Vegas anyway. But much of it will come out of other entertainment spending in local communities, and some will come out of mortgage payments, college savings or productive business investments.
Gambling addiction splits families and ruins lives, and a spike in the amount of gambling will take a toll. San Jose saw this during its last major expansion of cardroom gambling in the 1990s. After Bay 101 opened, specializing in Asian games, local human service agencies saw waves of Asian domestic violence victims - a rarity before - and families in financial distress.
Casinos have made some tribes, like these four, extremely rich.

A fund spreads some of the profits to non-gaming tribes, but many Native Americans still languish in poverty, and these new compacts will not be much help. They're definitely not what Californians signed up for when they approved Indian gaming in 1998 to help struggling tribes.

At the governor's request, the federal Department of the Interior has published the new gaming compacts in the Federal Register, which makes them part of federal law. That could supersede California law, which is the subject of the referendum.
An unusual - some would say suspicious - chain of events led to this, including a mysterious disappearance of the compacts for a period. The Interior Department's inspector general is investigating, and the governor's role deserves close scrutiny as well - particularly if it ends up thwarting the voters' will. It's hard to believe he didn't know what he was doing.
This is the kind of shady dealing that dogs large-scale gambling wherever it takes place. It's all the more reason to say no to Propositions 94 through 97, and hope it's not too late

OP: Pechanga members currently are making $400,000 a year (Corrected). Good for them. HOWEVER, to get this much, they targeted TWO large families, that represented voting blocs, and terminated their membership, even though the tribe's OWN HIRED EXPERT PROVED that they were Pechanga people. See this LINK In the news report, the Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro is caught in a lie the first 15 seconds of the spot and more lies further in the article. But take a look, who looks more comfortable in presenting it's case; the tribal leader who has spoken before THOUSANDS, or the educator, who has the most experience tracing ancestry and who was PAID to prove that Paulina Hunter was NOT Pechanga, but found that wasn't true, she was? See it for yourself. Macarro is a liar, thus his motives are suspect, AND SINCE PECHANGA will CHEAT it's own people, why should you trust that they won't CHEAT the people of California? Please check out the links.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Where Are the Unions? AFL-CIO, SEIU, Unite Here

It would seem that if the unions are interested in rallying their members to the cause of NO on Props. 94-97 that you would see more activity from them on blogs, message boards and newpapers. Am I missing something? Where are YOU, union members? Can we count of your vote? Does the No endorsements of your leadership mean anything to you? allows comments on their blog. Feel free to comment here.

Vote NO on 94.

Original Pechanga is FOR Expanded Gaming but NO on Props. 94-97

I have stated before that I am FOR expanded gaming. But, as you can tell from this blog, I am AGAINST more slots for the Big 4.

We had a rule at our home growing up: "Nobody gets seconds until everyone has eaten."

There are many tribes in California that have not gotten their first serving of casino funds and therefore, my belief is that the richer tribes should not be able to gorge themselves when some tribes are literally starving.

Read the story at this LINK

By comparison, counting every cent of its federal grants, timber sales and $1.1 million from a state fund that shares casino revenues between rich tribes and poor ones, the Yurok spent $12 million last year. That's less than what one of the richest, the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians near Palm Springs, is spending to appoint rooms in its new resort hotel with granite counter tops, whirlpool baths, plasma-screen TVs and other luxuries.
Widening the economic gap between the tribes, rich ones also spend tens of millions on political contributions in the state capital supporting laws limiting competition and increasing their profits. Sometimes that means big-game tribes work to subvert small tribes' efforts to get into the business.

Say NO to Expanded Gaming until every tribe has been to the table.

Mabuhay Radio says NO to Props. 94-97 NO to Pechanga

Mabuhay Radio, the largest Filipino-American website for online publications in the country urges a NO vote on Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97. PLEASE vote no!

Please Vote “No” on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97

Written by Bobby Reyes
Jan 22, 2008 at 04:57 PM

The urges California voters, especially Filipino-American constituents, to reject the new state gambling compacts with four Southern California Indian tribes.

Proposition 94 is about the new slot machines for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians’ casino in Temecula.
Proposition 95 is for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino in Banning along Interstate 10.
Proposition 96 addresses the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, with its casino in El Cajon in San Diego County.
Proposition 97 involves the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which operates casinos in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage.
The compacts with the four Indian tribes would authorize them to operate 17,000 more slot machines, in addition to the 8,000 “one-arm bandits” that they already have in their casinos. If Propositions 94 to 97 pass, the four tribes would pay the state 15% to 25% of the profits from the additional 17,000 machines. The four Indian tribes claim that they would pay more-than $9-billion to California during the 23-year terms of the compact. This would mean some $391.30-million per year for the 17,000 slot machines. This would translate to $23,017.65 per year per slot machine or $63.06 per machine per day.
There are social costs that casino gambling creates for the state and the respective counties where the four Indian tribes operate. The state share of $63.06 per slot machine per day may not even be enough to offset the increased costs of providing services to fight compulsive-gambling addiction that in turn brings about violence, separated families, foster-home services for the minor children of divorcing families, etceteras, etc., and what not. The claim that the additional revenue from the compacts would help California with its budgetary deficits is just as vain as the gambler’s hope of hitting the jackpot in the proposed new slot machines.
The opponents say that the revenue to the state from the four compacts is overestimated. There is also the argument that the compacts do not ensure that California would get its fair share, as the percentage is based on projected profits from the operation of the slot machines.
Even labor unions are against the propositions. In short, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 bring more disadvantages than benefits to the State of California and her people, including American Native Indians. Voters should and must reject them.

Please read the entire editorial at: Mabuhay Radio

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

More Reasons to vote NO on the Props 94-97

Here's what happens should Californians pass the expanded gaming Propositions:

Decreases in Other State and Local Revenues.

The compact amendment would result in reductions of other revenues received by the state and local governments:

Effects on Taxable Economic Activity.
As tribal gambling expands, Californians would spend more of their income at tribal facilities, which are exempt from most types of state and local taxes. This means Californians would spend less at other businesses that are subject to state and local taxes—for example, hotel, restaurant, and entertainment businesses off of tribal lands. This would result in reduced tax revenues for the state and local governments.

Reduced Gambling-Related Revenues.
The state and local governments currently receive revenues from other forms of gambling—such as the California Lottery, horse racing, and card rooms. Expanded gambling on tribal lands could reduce these other sources of state and local revenues. In addition, as the Pechanga tribe expands its casino operations, it may attract customers who otherwise would go to the casinos of other California tribes. If this occurs, these other tribes would receive fewer revenues from their casinos and could pay less to the state under the terms of their compacts.

Less Money in the SDF.
If voters approve this proposition, the Pechanga tribe would stop making payments to the SDF. (Other propositions on this ballot also would reduce payments to the SDF.) Under current law, the first priority use of money in the SDF is to cover shortfalls in the RSTF so that tribes with no casino or a small casino receive a $1.1 million annual payment. If there is still not enough money to cover RSTF shortfalls, the compact amendment requires the state to use a part of the Pechanga tribe’s payment to the General Fund to make up the difference. In addition, other programs (such as grants to local governments) funded by the SDF might need to be reduced and/or paid for from the General Fund.
While these revenue decreases are difficult to estimate, the combined impact would be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

And that is IF the tribes put all 7,000 machines in. What is the incentive to do so, if they are going to be taxed at 25% of those machines. They won't be able to fill the casino now. Wouldn't it make better sense to increase the tax to 25% of the NEXT 3,000 and then 15% of the last 2,000? Otherwise, it's a net of about $13 million to the state, at best. We need a better deal.

So Much to Learn

We have been getting quite a few visitors to this blog and I thank you all for coming. There are archives on the right side of the blog that contain some information that you should know before voting no to expanded gaming. Pechanga simply should not be rewarded for violating their members civil rights and for eliminating people because of how they were going to vote, or perceived as voting. Say no to corruption, no to Pechanga.

Your no vote will NOT end tribal gaming, it will simply keep a tribe like Pechanga, who are making quite enough money now, reportedly $400,000 per year from gaining at the expense of some of their people. Please call Pechanga and ask how much Pechanga Indian Blood, their councilman Russell "Butch" Murphy has. The Government number is: 951-676-2768 Ask them why they would kick out families proven Pechanga and keep an adopted person?

Don Perata says Pechanga, Big 4 compacts "non-binding"

The reasons for voting NO just keep on coming. In this video, Don Perata, who is trying to sneak around term limits, says that the agreements with the Governor for the Big four tribes are "non-binding".

Watch it:

Monday, January 21, 2008

Rights Protest at Pechanga

Rights Protest at Pechanga
"No Rights, No Compact!"
Saturday, February 2, 2008 @ 10 am
Pechanga Resort & Casino
Temecula, CA

Pechanga tribal officials have signed a compact with the State of California that would authorize the largest expansion of casino gambling in U.S. history.
Yet Pechanga tribal officials have tried continuously to keep California voters from exercising their Constitutional right to participate in the referendum process. First, they tried to block voters from signing petitions. This failed as nearly 3 million signatures were gathered to put the deals on the ballot. Next, Pechanga filed a lawsuit to keep the Prop 94 from going to the voters- this also failed.

Why are Pechanga officials so eager to deny California voters their right to decide this issue when it was California voters who approved gaming on Indian lands in the first place? Could it be that the Pechanga officials know that its "sweetheart deals" may not hold up to voter scrutiny?

No Rights, No Compact!

It should come as no surprise that a tribe that has denied its own members basic rights guaranteed by tribal laws and the Constitution would work so hard and spend so much money to deny other Californians their rights as well. Should you really expect Pechanga officials to value and respect the rights of others when they have not done the same for their own citizens?
Due process and equal protection of the law are hard to come by at Pechanga. Throw in blatant disregard for the Constitution and lack of protection of basic rights, and you will begin to understand why nearly 300 Pechanga members have been stripped of their citizenship- and many hundreds more denied membership- since California voters approved tribal gaming and Pechanga became one of the wealthiest tribes in the State.

Please join us on February 2nd to protest the rights violations committed by Pechanga tribal officials, and please vote No on Prop 94.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Schwarzenegger practices POLITICS OF EVIL : Pechanga Leader Mark Macarro

What has changed between Pechanga and our Governor? Chairman Macarro, the portly head of the shrinking Pechanga tribe said this in 2003:

"An ad of this sort is an act of desperation by Arnold and it's clearly being orchestrated by Pete Wilson and his cohorts from his days as governor. It smacks of the politics of evil that were indicative of Pete Wilson," said Mark Macarro, chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, which has donated more than $500,000 to Bustamante.

Has Arnold changed his practices or has Macarro's definition of evil changed after he helped to kick out 25% of his tribe (equivalent to getting rid of 8 MILLION Californians)

Vote No to Pechanga, No to Schwarzenegger,
No to Expanded Gaming and NO to EVIL...

Here is an open letter to newspapers from Macarro:

OPEN LETTER: From Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro To California Newspapers
Dear Editor:
Arnold Schwarzenegger's hypocritical political commercials attacking California gaming Tribes are examples of "wedge issue" politics at their ugliest and most ignorant.
Mr. Schwarzenegger says we contribute nothing to California. In fact, gaming Tribes provide good-paying jobs for over 41,000 California workers.
Our Tribe alone pays $66 million in salaries every year. We pay over $9 million in employee benefits and $36 million in state and federal taxes annually.
In addition, California Tribes pay $150 million into two state funds each year for local infrastructure improvements and for the non-gaming Tribes. We contribute millions more to local infrastructure projects directly, and donate millions to public service.
We pay for our own police and fire protection, and for other services government has never provided us. The state of California provides nothing to the Indian reservations and yet we still share our resources with the local governments, because we know what it means to be good neighbors. Throughout our history we have been exploited. We have and are "paying our fair share," Mr. Schwarzenegger — many times over. We also use our earnings to educate, house and provide medical care for our people, removing thousands from the welfare rolls.
When Mr. Schwarzenegger "pandered" to the Tribes for his Proposition 49 campaign last year, Tribes gave thousands. Tribal gaming money was good enough for him then, but now that we believe other candidates are better qualified to lead California, he says we have no right to participate in the process. In spite of what he says in his commercials that are paid for by "special interest groups," we have followed all of the rules and will continue to do so. OP: Uh, Macarro, didn't you give too much to Cruz Bustamante and he had to give it back? Oh, that rule...
On behalf of my ancestors who have lived here since time immemorial, OP: Macarro, so has MINE, and you and your cohorts kicked us out of the tribe so that you can steal our money and covet our land. we find Mr. Schwarzenegger's hypocrisy shameful.
Mark MacarroTribal ChairmanThe Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians

Sacto Bee: Voters Should REJECT Props. 94, 95, 96,97

Think gambling is good for California’s future?You’re making a very bad bet

A staggering amount of money is being spent to persuade state voters to ratify four Indian gambling deals. If approved, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 would authorize 17,000 more slot machines for four of the state’s wealthiest gambling tribes. The deals would catapult California into the gambling big leagues, well beyond the modest increase voters were promised when they first authorized Nevada-style gambling for tribes in 1998.

This page has consistently opposed the expansion of gambling, beginning with the state lottery. We oppose the new gambling deals contained in these referendum initiatives, too. Gambling is the wrong way to grow the state’s economy. It doesn’t create new economic activity. It simply substitutes one form of entertainment spending for another. More money spent gambling means less money spent to go to the movies, eat out, play golf – all activities that don’t create gambling addiction or prey on the poor.

The growing political clout of wealthy gambling tribes that are not accountable to the wider public is worrisome, too. In a few short years, gambling tribes have become the biggest political contributors in the state. Legislators and the governor, too, rush to do their bidding.
Voters should know that the principal opponents of the new compacts have suspect motives. They include rival gambling tribes that fear competition, as well as racetrack and cardroom operators who hope to end the tribes’ casino monopoly in California so they can get in on the action. OP: And also 3,000 tribal members that have been disenrolled in violation of their civil rights.

Supporters of the new compacts, including most prominently Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have suggested that the gambling deals will provide $9 billion to help ease the state’s fiscal crisis. A clearer picture comes from the nonpartisan legislative analyst, who says of their likely fiscal impact, “Even assuming that all the 2006 compacts are ratified and a few more similar compacts are ratified in the future, we expect that compact related sources will provide the general fund with less than 0.5 percent of its annual revenues for the foreseeable future.” OP: In other words, cut a penny in half. And this is a MAYBE, or more correctly, 'within the realm of the possible, but not probable.

There is a real question as to whether California has the ability to adequately police these deals. The California Gaming Control Commission, the state’s principal gambling regulator, has been notoriously ineffective in the past.
The legislative analyst says regulators have complained that they have limited access to tribal financial reports and information related to internal controls over slot machines. They lack casino financial reports prepared by independent accountants. They are unable to conduct interim walk-through audits (as Nevada regulators do). They can’t station audit personnel at each casino 24 hours a day (as in New Jersey) to test devices.
Finally, the ambiguous language of the compacts is troublesome. Payments to the state are based in part on “the average number of gaming devices operated” during a quarter. Opponents say that by roping off machines during slow periods and thus reducing the average number of slots “operated,” the tribes can substantially reduce any payout to the state. Compact supporters claim no such manipulation is intended or allowed. Maybe not, but the ambiguity gives voters another reason to vote No on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

Take a look at the list of NO papers on my sidebar. The three papers is support of expanded gaming? San Bernardino Sun, The Press Enterprise and the NC Times ALL HEAVILY dependent on casino ad revenues! They know better, but are going to support their bread an butter. News organizations that aren't dependent on the tribes, have a clearer head.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Education Groups DENOUNCE Props 94-97

Lets see, the leaders of the largest teacher's groups in the state are AGAINST the compacts and the pro gaming puts a young teacher who may not even have her credential, on television.

Contact: Shelly Sullivan(916) 213-3700
Sacramento —

In consideration of the new advertisement featuring a teacher in a classroom the following statements were issued today jointly by the California Federation of Teachers, the California School Employees Association and United Teachers Los Angeles who are calling on the Yes on 94-97 campaign to cease making false promises to voters about funding for our schools in their campaign to expand their casinos:

“We are deeply concerned by the Yes on Proposition 94-97 campaign’s claim that schools will benefit from these gambling compacts, when the truth is that none of the propositions’ revenues would be dedicated to our schools.”

Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers

“The 2006 Compacts’ revenues will not flow through Proposition 98 (the state’s minimum funding formula for education), meaning that these funds will not automatically benefit schools. And, if experience is any indication, it is highly unlikely that any compact funds will be used for our schools in the future.

Rob Feckner, president of the California School Employees Association
“If approved by voters under the false impression they are voting to ‘provide billions to California schools,’ Proposition 94, 95, 96, and 97 could further the misperception that schools are receiving adequate funding from gambling measures – a misperception that already plagues educators’ efforts to provide genuine revenue increases to California schools.”

A.J. Duffy, president of the United Teachers Los Angeles

Propositions 94-97 will not deliver on their fiscal and social promises. Educators are urging Californians to vote no on Props 94-97 and send elected officials back to the negotiating table to craft compacts that are fair to education, public safety, taxpayers, workers, the environment and other tribes.

VOTE NO on Props. 94-97

Letter to NAACP to Withdraw Endorsement of Prop. 94

We are asking the supporters of NO on expanded gaming to send a letter or fax or email to the NAACP asking them to withdraw their support of Civil Rights violators, namely the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Vote NO on 94 and please contact the NAACP.

Address for NAACP National Headquarters is:

NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
Baltimore, MD 21215

(410)602-9310 fax
(877)622-2798 toll free

People can also submit letter via email to the California State Conference of the NAACP by using the following link:

In the Subject box for the email submission form type in: Withdraw Support of Prop 94

Sacto NAACP fax is: 916-498-1895

California State Conference of the NAACP
C/o Alice A. Huffman, President
1315 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Withdraw NAACP’s Endorsement of Proposition 94

Dear President Huffman:

I submit this letter as a formal request to the California State Conference of the NAACP to revoke its support of Proposition 94 and return any donation and/or fees received from the Pechanga Band.

Over the last 4 years, Pechanga tribal officials have been responsible for the mass disenfranchisement of over 300 tribal citizens. The actions to remove these citizens from the tribal roles, and deny hundreds more their citizenship, have been characterized by lack of due process and equal protection of existing tribal and federal laws.

Specifically, laws enacted to protect Indian individuals from arbitrary and capricious acts of tribal officials, such as the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, were largely ignored. Targeted individuals were not only denied minimum due process standards, the most recent mass disenfranchisement was approved by Pechanga tribal officials after the tribe’s governing body had passed a law prohibiting such action.

This “cultural genocide” now finds hundreds of Pechanga tribal members and thousands more California Indians cut-off from much needed health care services, senior services, education assistance and child development programs.

Pechanga tribal officials have routinely stated that their actions were merely attempts to determine their membership and have escaped prosecution for their dastardly deeds by invoking the tribe’s sovereignty. Nevertheless, immunity from prosecution does not equate to innocence of action.

Moreover, failure to acknowledge and/or address such gross violations of basic human and civil rights, or to merely brush them aside as tribal matters, will only lead to more victims of rights abuse. Allowing such violations to continue reduces the effectiveness of current civil rights protections for all people.

The actions of Pechanga tribal officials are horrific indeed, and they are the very types of acts that have spurred the NAACP’s continuing and decade’s long fight for freedom so that all people will have “realized the equal hand of justice.”

Please reconsider your position on Proposition 94 and revoke your support of the Pechanga Band’s amended compact.

Respectfully submitted:

Why Californians Should Vote NO on Props. 94-97

My new blog is up at: The rest of the list is there

Let me count the reasons:

  1. Because these are flawed compacts and we can have our politicians do better by us. If it doesn’t pass the smell test, DON’T DO IT.
    There are no guarantees of $9 billion. Even the commercials state “up to $9 billion. That only happens if every slot they put in averages the same win as the machines they have now. That ain’t gonna happen. If you can find 500 empty machines now on a Wednesday at Agua Caliente, and Sycuan, how many empties will you have when they add 10,000 more machines? I make that 11,000 empties, not generating money for CA.
  2. Because the tribes will be the auditors of their own businesses. Can you say, “two sets of books”? If you are a business owner, you know what that means.
    Because only 4 of 108 CA tribes will benefit from these compacts, all 1800 people. If the state gets $9 billion, the tribes get $36 billion $9B for 33,000,000 = $36B for 1800 Wouldn’t 50-50 split be a better deal for CA?
  3. Because one of the tribes, Pechanga is a violator of civil rights. Why reward them for that? We stopped doing business with South Africa, because of just those reasons. Should we grant a huge increase in income to a tribe that has eliminated so many people.
    Because it just doesn’t feel right. Why would the tribes try to keep us from voting on the propositions, and then spend $65 million on trying to convince us to vote yes? Follow the money, who benefits most? Those against the props, or those for it? Who is spending the most? The Yes tribes are spend $83 million and the No group is spending $20 million.

Pechanga & Morongo are DESPERATE! Spending over $82 MILLION

It's DESPERATION time! The Pechanga Band is rightfully worried that their Prop. 94 will be the only proposition to LOSE in three weeks. If these propositions were so good for California, WHY would the tribes have to spend $82,700,000 trying to convince us?

And this total does not include the millions the tribe spend trying to KEEP US from our right to vote on this issue. These propositions STINK and thus, don't pass the smell test. Vote NO on Pechanga, No on 94.

Indian gaming fight tops $100 million
SACRAMENTO - With 18 days still to go, the money pouring into the fight over four Indian gaming measures on the Feb. 5 ballot has topped $100 million, positioning the initiative battle to become the most expensive of all time.
The Pechanga band, which operates a bustling casino resort in Temecula, pushed the campaign into nine figures on Friday with a $12 million check that raised its stake thus far to a staggering $32.4 million.

The Morongo band of Banning, which owns a glistening high-rise casino resort just off busy Interstate 10, has put up $30.5 million, followed by Agua Caliente of Palm Springs at $14.7 million and Sycuan of El Cajon, $5 million.
The four tribes together have dumped nearly $82.7 million into the campaign to save compacts that would allow them to add up to 17,000 more slot machines in Southern California.
The opposition -- two other big gaming tribes, a casino workers union and the owner of two horse tracks -- has mustered $25.9 million to date. Most of that has come from the two tribes -- $11.5 million from the Pala band of north San Diego County and $9 million from United Auburn of suburban Sacramento.

VOTE NO on Prop. 94 No to Pechanga No to Civil Rights Violators.

Friday, January 18, 2008

NO on Props. 94-97: NAACP's Endorsement FOR SALE, Civil Rights Violators Pechanga Buys their endorsement

Last month, we reported that the NAACP endorsed the expanded gaming propositions, even though it is well known that Pechanga has violated the civil rights of their people. We asked how they can stand with a tribe that has terminated 25% of their people, disenfranchising them and taking away their voting rights in the tribe.

Todays SAC BEE has the story on Huffman being paid as a consultant to the Big 4 tribes. The link has the rest of the story:

NAACP head is paid by tribes, backs their plan
By Shane Goldmacher -

The president of the California NAACP has been paid more than $40,000 in consulting fees – and the organization itself has received $60,000 – from a coalition of Indian tribes at the same time the civil rights group has endorsed four ballot measures pushed by its tribal benefactors.
The payments to Alice Huffman, who has served as president of the state conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People since 1999, continue a three-year pattern in which Huffman's political firm has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by special interest groups.
Those same interests, including tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, have also donated tens of thousands of dollars directly to the state NAACP while receiving the organization's backing.

OP: The Pechanga Band has stripped 25% of their tribe of their voting rights, right to due process, right to have attorneys present, right to confront their accusers, in a thus far successful effort to eliminate two large voting blocs. Now, a group that proclaims they are for civil rights, sides with violators of civil rights, all for $100,000 grand. I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the only African-American members of Pechanga, who were Hunter family members were kept from the tribes schools, being thrown out when they were disenrolled.

Would the NAACP change their position for more money, or would they just want a bidding war?

Can California Tribes Survive Being Rich? No on Pechanga-No on Prop. 94

My new post is up at:

California tribes had grown their membership in the late 20th century. Picayune Rancheria had swelled their membership to over 1200. Pechanga grew from 480 members in 1979 to over 1,000 by 2003. Pechanga’s tribal constitution and bylaws call for open enrollment every January. A candidate for enrollment must show lineal descent from an original Pechanga person. It was good to grow the tribes, as they could show the Federal government how much they needed more grant money. Better to get money for 1,000 than 480.

But something sinister happened, that coincided with the approval of Proposition 5 in California. Some tribal members decided that they didn’t want to share the good fortune with their family. Pechanga enacted a moratorium, which means that they stopped enrolling people into the tribe, whether they could prove lineal descent or not. Other tribes like Redding Rancheria started disenrolling members. Chukchansi has eliminated 600 tribal members and surprise! They have kept that money for themselves. No matter the damage to elderly and young. They were tossed to the curb.

Read the rest of the story:

Thursday, January 17, 2008

No on Prop. 94-97 Schwarzenegger Urged US Review of Compacts

Casino deals got a nudge
Governor says he urged U.S. review of Indian compacts.
By Judy Lin - jlin@sacbee.comPublished 12:00 am PST Thursday, January 17, 2008

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he personally called U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and asked him to give "some attention" to four Indian gambling compacts before the federal government reversed itself and finalized the agreements last month.

OP: Does 'give some attention" mean stick it in a drawer for 90 days and 'don't find it'?

The action has led to widespread speculation that one or more of the tribes might claim the deals to expand their casinos are valid, even if voters reject the compacts next month.

Arnold also tried to keep Californians from voting on the propositions. Let's see, he loved propositions last year, when the people of CA handed his head back to him, but this year, he doesn't think the people should vote??

Schwarzenegger, who wants voters to authorize 17,000 more slot machines at four Southern California casinos, told The Bee editorial board that he's unclear whether the federal action would override voters should they reject the agreements.
"I thought if the voters did not approve it, it's gone," he said. "But maybe you're asking me that … because there is a way out of it? That will be quite interesting. I don't know."

OP: A WAY OUT OF IT? Arnold, you mean a way around the law as Californians want it?

Four tribes – the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation – are seeking an expansion of slot machines at their casinos. They say the compacts could bring $9 billion to the state over two decades.

Actually, their first wave of commercials intimated that the $9 billion was one year. Deceptive enough that they had to change the commercial.

Though the Legislature and the governor approved the compacts, opponents placed the compacts on the Feb. 5 ballot in an effort to overturn them. OP: Uh, yeah, with 3,000,000 signatures of our citizens.
In early September, Secretary of State Debra Bowen sent the four approved compacts to the Interior Department for federal approval. But they mysteriously disappeared soon after arriving and did not resurface for 80 days.
That was well after the federally mandated 45-day window for acting on the compacts had closed, meaning department officials had no choice but to deem them approved, which they did in late November or early December.
On Dec. 3, an official for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is part of the Interior Department, said the bureau would delay publishing a notice of the compacts' approval in the Federal Register to avoid more confusion about their legal status. But the official was overruled by superiors, and the approval was published Dec. 19.
Schwarzenegger told the editorial board that he did not specifically ask Kempthorne to publish the agreements, but asked him to make sure that "everything go through procedures." OP: Oh, I believe you Arnold.
But Schwarzenegger's communications director Matt David said later that the governor did bring up the publication issue with Kempthorne in a Dec. 6 call on another subject.
"He said that part of the deal for the compacts is that in order for them to be finalized, they had to be published in the federal registry, and that we need to make that happen," David said.
He said the governor was simply trying to ensure that the compacts were completed as required, not seeking to give the tribes a post-election legal advantage. OP: "The check is in the mail, let's be friends, of course I'll respect you in the morning"

See the rest of the article:

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Captains Quarters Shines the Spotlight On Pechanga's Corruption

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters, has a post up on the "Lost Compact" agreements at the BIA.

We wrote about it here last week. There is so much to learn and teach about the tactics of Pechanga and the other Big 3 tribes.

Thank you Cap'n Ed for taking this national. There is more about the corrupt activities of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians at

UPDATE: SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION also has an article up.

CA Stonewall Democrats, SEIU say NO on 94-97

Add the California Stonewall Demcrats AND the Service Employees Internation Union (54,000 strong) in saying:

NO to Pechanga
NO to expanded gaming
NO to Propositions 94-97

Uncle Woody also says NO on expanded gaming:

Ask a public educator how much money he or she sees from California's Lotto. Go ahead... I'll wait.Not very much, you say? Then you can understand why Uncle Woody is less than impressed with the argument that Indian Gaming pumps millions of dollars into California's economy. When you factor in all the costs associated with gambling and its effects on the average family, that revenue pales by comparison.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The Governator's Assumptions "TOO Rosy" says LAO: No on Prop. 94-97

From the LAO:

In contrast to its generally solid estimates, some items in the Governor's budget continue to be built on rosy assumptions. For instance, the administration's estimate of Indian gambling revenues could be around $200 million too high, over 2007-08 and 2008-09 combined. (even if the states voters approve Propositions 94, 95, 96, 97 on the February 2008 ballot)

OP: Okay, if Schwarzenegger's budget assumptions are 'too rosy', then there is NO WAY that Indian Gaming will bring in $9 billion. That means the pro-expanded gaming is way off. How do you make up $200,000,000 in an upcoming recession? That's one reason why we need a NO vote. We need to get a better deal, say 50% of the tribe's monopoly profits.

That means the tribes would get $20 billion and California gets $20 billion. The difference? Tribes have to split their $20 BILLION between 1800 people and California divvy's it up between 33,000,000 people. Who gets the better deal then? Both. Vote NO and ask your congressperson to get us a better compact that makes sure that we get the money we deserve.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Quote from Mark Macarro, Leader of Pechanga's Incredible Shrinking Tribe

Mark Macarro
, chairman of the Pechanga tribe, says there’s no way Indians will give Gov. Gray Davis the $1.5 billion he’s seeking to help offset the state budget deficit. "Why should [taxes] go to the state?" Macarro asks. "This is our business."


So NOW he wants us to believe that he gives a HOOT about our budget? NOW he wants us to believe that they are spending money to PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET AND ECONOMY?

Sunday, January 13, 2008

No on Props 94, 95, 96,97: What is a Modest Increase in Slots?

One of the pro expanded gaming commercials running now (paid for by $50 million from the big 4 tribes) claims that the agreements would allow a "modest increase in slot machines" to the tribes. Let's examine that claim.

Current slots: 8,000 New slots available with compact: 17,000 Therefore a modest increase in slots, according to the tribes is 212.5%

I encourage all workers at Pechanga to ask for a "modest increase" in salary.

The $ 8 an hour Janitor will now make: $17 per hour ($16,000 per year to $35,000)
The $12 an hour restaurant manager will now make: $25.50 per hour
The $16 an hour Pit boss will now make $34 per hour ($32,000 per year to $70,000)
The $32 an hour executive will now make $68 per hour

Do you think Pechanga would think those salary increases "modest"? Union organizers, please use the term MODEST in your next negotiations.

Vote NO to a modest increase, No to Pechanga. Please write the casino and ask them to give a modest increase of 212.5% to their employees.

How Many California Indian Tribes Support Pechanga's New Gaming Agreement?

There are over 105 recognized California Indian Tribes. According to the Pro-Expanded compact site, only 17 tribes are in support, including Jamul, who forcibly evicted (with metal batons and pepper spray) tribal members to make room for a casino. Redding Rancheria, who loves to disenroll their members is also a supporter. The California Valley Miwoks, have disenrolled 33% of their entire TRIBE'S decision makers!

Now, add Pechanga to the mix, the tribe who kicked their elders to the curb, eliminated 25% of the tribe, forced children OUT OF THEIR School..... and now are complaining they aren't getting enough money.

It's like killing your parents and then whining about being an orphan..... VOTE NO

SF Chronicle says NO to Pechanga, No on Expanded Gaming

A sellout to big gambling

Saturday, January 12, 2008 See Editorial

The soothing commercials for Proposition 94-97 suggest their passage would offer a pain-free, $9 billion elixir for California's budget woes.
These measures are neither pain-free nor an elixir.
Passage of these propositions would allow four of the state's wealthiest tribes - Agua Caliente, Morongo, Pechanga, Sycuan - to dramatically expand their Southern California gambling operations by adding up to 17,000 Nevada-style slot machines. Their casinos in Riverside and San Diego counties would become among the world's largest.

That $9 billion "windfall" for state government - assuming the proponents' projections come to fruition - would not suddenly fall from the sky. It would come between now and 2030 and the additional state revenue from the new slots would amount to, at best, perhaps one-tenth of 1 percent of the state's budget. It is not even close to a panacea for the budget woes that are dominating today's headlines.

See the LINK above. This would give the 1800 strong big 4 tribes over 35 BILLION dollars. This, for a tribe like Pechanga, that has CHEATED their own people. Don't you think they would CHEAT the rest of California, too? I've been cheated as have over 400 caught up in the moratorium.... Pechanga has lied, cheated and stolen from their own people..... Don't let them do the same to you.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

No on Prop 94 95 96 97: CA Voters Should Be Thankful

Former Pechanga member John Gomez, Jr. who, along with 130 adult members of his family, were forcibly stripped of their citizenship and denied their civil rights, writes about why CA voters should vote NO on Prop 94 95 96 97.

California voters should be thankful and exercise their right to vote.

And remember this, Not all Californians share the same basic rights we all take for granted. Just ask those who have been victimized by Tribes such as the Pechanga Band of the Big 4. Due process and equal protection of the law are hard to come by at Pechanga.

Throw in blatant disregard for the Constitution and lack of protection of basic rights, and you will begin to understand why nearly 300 Pechanga members have been stripped of their citizenship- and many hundred more denied membership- since California voters approved tribal gaming and Pechanga became one of the wealthiest tribes in the State.

It should come as no surprise that a tribe that has denied its own members basic rights guaranteed by tribal laws and the Constitution would work so hard and spend so much money to deny other Californians their rights as well. Should we really expect Pechanga officials to value and respect the rights of "outsiders" - remember Chairman Macarro's statement to the press that what the tribe (Pechanga) does- " no business to the white man."- when they have done the same for their own citizens.

Pechanga is not the only California gaming tribe to blatantly deny individuals their basic rights- thousands of Californians have been the victims of human and civil rights violations at the hands of tribal governments. As a result of these rights violations, the victims have been cut-off from or denied health care benefits, elder benefits, education assistance, and other social services, and most must now avail themselves of state and federal programs at taxpayer expense. Over the life of the Big 4's sweetheart deals, hundreds of millions, and possibly billions, of dollars will be spent by the State of California to provide the victims of rights abuses the services previously provided by tribes such as Pechanga .

The payout to the State under these sweetheart deals amounts to nothing more than re-imbursement to the State for taking care of individuals wronged by Pechanga and other tribes. So, be thankful that you are not one of the thousands of Californians who have been victimized by tribal governments.

Be thankful that the courts have upheld your Constitutional rights and denied the Big 4's attempts to deny your right to vote. And don't be fooled by the dollar amounts being thrown about by the Big 4 tribes- a good portion of any money received under these sweetheart deals will go towards taking care of the victims of their crimes.

Lets send Pechanga, the Big 4, and the other offending tribes a message on February 5th. Vote no on Props 94, 95, 96, & 97.

John Gomez Jr.

Please consider joining AIRRO.

No on Pechanga: Paper Genocide (Lament of the Disenrolled Indian)

I'd like to present a song, written by my cousin, that expresses the sad situation of paper genocide practiced by Pechanga and other tribes in California. This is a great way to present my 200th blog post.

A PAPER GENOCIDE (LAMENT OF THE DISENROLLED INDIAN) WORDS BY 'AMO'KAT: To the tune of Indian Reservation, originally by Paul Revere and the Raiders







Vote no on 94 because of Pechanga's disgraceful actions of paper genocide on their people. Vote no on the other propositions because we Californians did NOT get a great deal.

Friday, January 11, 2008

VOTE NO on 94 95 96 97: How Big 4 can manipulate revenue

How Big 4 Can Manipulate Revenue

The Blue Sky Consulting Group Analysis

Ambiguity in the language of the 2006 compacts could result in significantly lower payments to the state General Fund than the tribes have claimed. The payments to the state under the compacts are calculated as a percentage of the total “net win” from the new slot machines. The compacts require the tribes to calculate the average net win per slot machine and multiply the result by the average number of new slot machines “in operation” during that quarter to determine the total net win from the new machines. Under the terms of the compacts, the tribes agreed to pay the state an amount equal to 15 to 25% of the net win, depending on the number of machines added.

OP: SO, if the tribes don't add the upper number of machines, they won't be paying 25% and we wont get $9 Billion. We can't force the tribes to put the machines in and we can't force 4 times the normal customers to come in either.

The language of the 2006 compacts, however, states that the tribes are to multiply the average number of slot machines “in operation” (rather than the average number of machines “present” on the casino floor) times the average win per machine (calculated using the present on the floor metric). Slot machines that are roped off during the weekdays, for example, might not be considered to be “in operation.OP: Would the machines in the hallway between the two casino floors be considered "on the floor"?

The result is a much smaller calculated net win number used for purposes of determining the payment to the state. OP: So why do they say "UP TO $9 Billion" That's like saying, "UP to $100 Billion" in terms of realism isn't it?

By taking advantage of this loophole in the compact language, the tribes could significantly reduce the amount of revenue paid to the state General Fund. OP: Uh, the Pechanga tribe tried to get around the cap on machines before. That's cheating. That means they cheated the state, the people of CA once before. But they won't THIS time? They already cheated 25% of their tribe, but THIS time, they will be honest. THIS time, they really mean it.

As shown in the table below, the tribes could reduce their overall payments to the state by as much as 60 percent.
Impact of Machines “in Operation” Versus “on the Floor” on State Revenues(dollars in millions)
Periods When Devices are "in operation"

See this link for the table

No to Pechanga: Betting AGAINST THE HOUSE


Betting against the house
Four powerful tribes seemingly hold all the cards, but labor still has an ace up its sleeveBy Cosmo Garvin

Here’s the first thing to understand about Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 on this February’s ballot: The people who put them there are going to spend at least $14 million to convince you to vote “no.”
On the other hand, the people who never wanted them on the ballot, who went to court to try and stop them—they’re going to spend at least $54 million trying to get you to say “yes.”
Confused yet? It gets worse. If approved, each of the four ballot measures would allow large Indian tribes in Southern California to dramatically expand their casino operations. There’s one ballot measure for each tribe: Sycuan, Pechanga, Morongo and Agua Caliente tribes.
The Pechanga and Morongo tribes will get to increase their numbers of slot machines from 2,000 to 7,500. The Sycuan and Agua Caliente groups would get bumped from 2,000 to 5,000. All in all, it represents an increase of 17,000 new slots in California, with a third of all machines in the state under the control of just these four big Southern California tribes.

In political ads bought by the four tribes, the measures are promised to provide up to $9 billion in new revenue to the state. The ads don’t mention that figure counts the revenue over 30 years, or that the independent California Legislative Analyst’s Office is predicting a far lower number. OP: They could use 100 years and that would be a whopping $20 Billion. Still, not true but it sure sounds bigger. The tribes don't mention that if the state gets $9 Billion, the tribes get over $36 billion

NOW, here's WHY our elected officials did a turnaround, from the article:

Even with the budget woes now facing California, it’s a little tough to understand why the Assembly Democrats made a such complete about-face. After all, Núñez has deep ties to the labor movement (he worked as a union organizer before running for office). Supporting the compacts was seen as a betrayal of his old labor buddies.
One possibility is that the Legislature has another, and somewhat touchier, political situation on its hands.
The Assembly speaker and his counterpart in the state Senate, President Pro Tem Don Perata, are trying to get voters to support another controversial ballot measure: Proposition 93. The term-limits measure would reduce the number of years an individual can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years. But it also would allow the current crop of lawmakers, who would be termed out after this year, to hold onto their jobs for several more terms. OP: AHA!!
Had the Legislature torpedoed the tribes gaming compacts, they might have seen their own political careers cut short as well.
“I think the Legislature was very concerned about the tribes coming in and opposing term limits,” said Bob Stern with the L.A.-based Center for Governmental Studies.
Asked whether there was a connection between Proposition 93 and the gaming compacts, Maviglio insisted, “It’s almost laughable,” and dismissed the idea that the big tribes were interested in sinking the term limits’ measure. “The tribes are pretty busy right now, spending every penny they have against each other.” OP: Uh, Maviglio, NO. The tribes have HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars, this is not EVERYTHING or even nearly everything. It's a pittance. And it will be even less if you give the tribes $36 billion more....

But it’s widely believed that California’s February 5 presidential primary exists, in part, to allow sitting legislators to enjoy the extra time in office afforded by Proposition 93. If the term-limits measure passes in February, termed-out lawmakers will be able to run for their seat again in the June primary.
If legislative leaders would go to the trouble of creating a third election in order to hold onto their seats, is it so hard to imagine that Núñez and his colleagues were doing some similar political triangulation with the gaming compacts?
“It’s all speculation,” Stern acknowledges. “But I think it’s pretty good speculation.”

Calitics Editorial Board: NO on Pechanga, No on Prop 94 95 96 97

The Calitics editorial board says NO on the Pechanga-led expanded gaming resolutions. And they reference Marc Coopers LA Weekly article TRIBAL FLUSH which details the disgraceful actions of Pechanga.

Vote NO on expanded gaming.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

No on Prop. 94 95 96 97: Contact Information for CA Legislature

Fax your congresspeople and ask them to urge their constituents to give them another chance to get this right for the people of CA.

The fax numbers for the CA State Assembly are virtually identical: They start with 1-916-319-2101 and go through 1-916-319-2180 The only numbers that change are the last 2. Those last 2 numbers represent the district the Assembly members represents. There are 80 districts. Starting from 01 for the 1st District and going through 80 for the 80th District- with all those in between- will cover everyone. Fax Numbers for California Senators- all are area code (916): 322-3304 323-6056 323-6958 323-2304 323-4529 324-6645 324-0283 324-2680 324-0922 324-7544 324-7543 324-4823 445-0128 445-0485 445-2527 445-4722 445-0773 445-9263 445-8899 445-4662 445-9754 445-8081 447-9008 327-2186 327-1997 327-2187 327-8817 327-9113 327-3522 327-2272 3 27-8755 327-2433 327-5989 327-2188

No on 94, 95,96,97 Be Thankful for your right to Vote: A Message From AIRRO

John Gomez, Jr, of the American Indian Rights and Resources Organization reminds us to:
Be Thankful of your right to vote

California voters need to ask a simple question before they cast their vote on Props 94, 95, 96, & 97- “Why did the Big 4 tribes try to deny my right to vote on these issue?”

The Big 4 tribes have spent millions of dollars to thwart the referendum process- a right guaranteed by the State Constitution. Signature blockers were hired to keep people from signing the petitions to put the deals on the ballots. Fortunately these antics failed and nearly 3 million signatures were gathered to qualify the referenda

When the signature blocking tactic failed, the Big 4 tribes filed several lawsuits to keep their deals off the ballot. To date, the Courts have sided with the voters of California and ruled against the Big 4 tribes.

It is hard to imagine that these tribes would spend so much time and money to deny California voters their Constitutional right to the referendum process. Was it not so long ago that the tribes used the same process to get propositions on the State ballot that would allow gaming on California Indian reservations? Why are they so reluctant to put their deals to a vote of the people?

Maybe the Big 4 tribes know that their “sweetheart deals” may not hold up to voter scrutiny. Or maybe they thought they could deny the California voters of their rights in the same manner as they have denied others.

Whatever the reason, California voters should be fortunate that we have this right because not all Californians share the same rights when it comes to dealing with Tribes such as the Pechanga Band of the Big 4.

Due process and equal protection of the law are hard to come by at Pechanga. Throw in blatant disregard for the Constitution and lack of protection of basic rights, and you will begin to understand why nearly 300 Pechanga members have been stripped of their citizenship- and many hundred more denied membership- since California voters approved tribal gaming and Pechanga became one of the wealthiest tribes in the State.

It should come as no surprise that a tribe that has denied its own members basic rights guaranteed by tribal laws and the Constitution would work so hard and spend so much money to deny other Californians their rights as well.

Pechanga is not the only California gaming tribe to blatantly deny individuals their basic rights- thousands of Californians have been the victims of human and civil rights violations at the hands of tribal governments. The rights violations have even extended to denying individuals the right to participate in the election process

So be thankful that you are not one of the thousands of Californians who have been victimized by tribal government. Be thankful that the courts have upheld your Constitutional rights. Lets send Pechanga, the Big 4, and the other offending tribes a message on February 5th.
Vote no on Props 94, 95,96, & 97.
OP: If only I was able to give you as clear a message. Please check out the links. And PLEASE, consider joining AIRRO. No to Pechanga's corruption, No to a bad deal for Californians. Pechanga tried to keep us from voting, now they are spending $35,000,000 trying to convince you that this is a good deal. If it's so good, why did they try to keep us from voting?

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Petition to Congress on Pechanga's Violations of Civil Rights

To: United States Congress
We the undersigned protest the actions taken by officials of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to deny and/or strip Pechanga Tribal Members of their identity and heritage.

In the course of the last 3 years, the Pechanga Tribal Officials have taken action to reduce its membership by nearly 30%. In 2004, 130+ adult members and their immediate families were disenrolled from the Pechanga Band. The members were all descendants of Chief Pablo Apish, a historically significant leader of the Pechanga/Temecula people. None of the members were allowed to participate in the 2004 tribal elections as a result of their disenrollment.

An additional extended family of approximately 100 adults was disenrolled in March 2006 when tribal officials determined that the ancestor from whom they are lineally descended from was not an Original Pechanga/Temecula person. This determination was made despite the fact that a report prepared by a well known anthropologist hired by the Band’s Enrollment Committee concluded she was a Pechanga/Temecula person.
The expulsions of the 2 families removed significant opposition to the current administration and others running for tribal office as they represented large voting blocks whose views differed from or opposed the current tribal Chairperson and a majority of the Tribal Council.
The actions of the tribal officials responsible for this “reduction in membership” have violated tribal and federal laws enacted to protect the basic rights and privileges of the individual Indian victims.
Specifically, the members were denied the due process and equal rights protections provided in the Indian Civil Rights Act, as well as language in the Band’s Constitution and Bylaws which mandates that tribal officials uphold the individual rights of each member without malice or prejudice. Tribal members were also subjected to ex post facto laws; denied participation in the electoral process; had personal property taken without cause or just compensation; and are being denied their right to practice their religion. Pechanga tribal officials have continually attempted to mislead the public regarding their actions to deny individual rights by claiming “it is an internal matter”.

In fact, Pechanga Chairman Macarro was quoted in the local newspaper as saying, "What goes on internally at Pechanga is of no business to the white man, …" It is this type of arrogance, coupled with the violations of individual rights, which must be stopped before it spreads even further. The denial or taking of any individual’s basic human and civil rights cannot merely be brushed aside by categorizing it as “an internal matter”. In fact, such characterization should be cause for alarm and seen as an act by the oppressors to further violate the rights of the victim.

Until such time as the basic rights of all individual Indian people are recognized and upheld on par with those of other citizens, a growing number of individual Indians will be subjected to the same types of arbitrary and unjust acts which have been committed by Pechanga tribal officials- acts which were intended to be outlawed decades ago. Based on their actions, we request that the Federal Government conduct an investigation of the Pechanga tribal officials for their continued gross violations of human and civil rights, and subject these officials to the most severe criminal sanctions allowed. Cultural genocide should not be tolerated by anyone and should be fought by all.

It is in the best interest of all people- Indian and non-Indian alike- that any violations of human and/or civil rights be addressed promptly and the violators be stopped before there are additional victims to their crimes.

The Undersigned

PLEASE, feel free to sign the petition