Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Fifteen Years AFTER Pechanga Announces Casino Opening, Look what's happened.

1993 - Nov. 24: Pechanga announces plan to open Casino. 96 years after the death of Paulina Hunter and 14 years after open enrollment of 1979. There were NO plans for casino in 1979, and Hunter descendents have some of the lowest enrollment numbers. 1995 - Dec. 31: Pechanga per capita checks total $1,075 for the year. 1996 - Pechanga per capita checks rise to $3,360 yearly. 1997 - Pechanga per capita checks soar to $20, 204 a six-fold increase. Pechanga establishes a moratorium, keeping rightful members from joining the tribe. Pechanga announces it's to allow the enrollment committee to "catch up" on applications. 11 years later, the moratorium is still in place. 2000 - Pechanga per capita checks total $47,744 for the year. Former Pechanga Spokesman imprisoned for child molestation. Pechanga later uses his hearsay testimony over scientific research. 2001: Enrollment committee sends notice to general membership that there are no plans to disenroll anyone, that the rumor of plans to disenroll hundreds of tribal members is just that, a rumor. 2003 - Pechanga checks now total: $187,302. CPP (Splinter group calling themselves Conderned Pechanga People) pushes for disenrollment of the Manuela Miranda family. They claim it’s NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. Read about Pechanga’s Paper Trail of Tears. Chairman Mark Macarro tells Press Enterprise: "What goes on internally at Pechanga is of no business to the white man, enrollment included" 2004 - Pechanga per capita checks rise from $15,000 to 17,662 per MONTH after Manuela Miranda family is ejected from the tribe. Over 800 adults get an additional $2600 per month. Tribal Chairman Macarro says it’s NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. Enrollment committee receives the report they commissioned from Dr. John Johnson, whom THEY hired to research the background of Paulina Hunter. He states that Paulina Hunter was born Pechanga to Mateo Quisicac, who has Pechanga referenced in his census record. The ONLY one on record. 2005 - Pechanga per capita totals $238,000 for the year, elders receive a larger stipend. There are 25 elders in the Hunter clan, CPP pushes for disenrollment of the only Pechanga ancestor who has Pechanga listed in her lineage in the 19th Century. It’s not about the money? Tribal general membership meets in one of there largest gatherings todate and overwhelmining votes to STOP all disenrollments and remove the disenrollment process from tribal law by a HUGE margin.. 2006 – Council decides to to cancel all tribal general membership meetings for several months, not the usual custom and gathering in secret behind closed doors decides to overturn the vote of the general membership and continue with the disenrollment process. March 20, Hunter family receives notice of disenrollments 2006 - April, Dr John Johnson sends enrollment committee letter reiterating his findings that Paulina Hunter was an Original Pechanga Person. More to come


Anonymous said...


Can you say conspiracy?

stand your ground said...



Anonymous said...

I was enrolled in 1979 before Butch Murphy fought to be enrolled with no papers in 1980. Back when enrollment numbers were in the double digits.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Anonymous said...

so whats the per capita now?...is that a big secret?..if you put it out it will help your cause...you must have some old friends that are still getting checks that will tell you..and why you are at it post san Manuels and Morongos and so on...the public needs to know what they are geting if you want support for your cause...most non-tribal have no idea the huge amounts they are raking in..THANKS!

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

The last word is that the per capita was $30,500 per month, with a possible reduction in sight.

This was before Pechanga laid off 400 employees bringing the total positions reduced to 800.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous #5
Instead of using Butch Murphy's lineage as a justification to disenroll him and family, thereby justifying the acts of dis-enrollment that we are fighting,
I would suggest using Butch Murphy's status as a citizen as proof that the whole lineage argument to dis-enroll selected families was both arbitrary, malicious and moot. If no lineage is good enough for Butch Murphy to retain his citizenship than no lineage is good enough for you
The appropriate view from a human rights standpoint is that there is no such thing as a lesser citizen in a nation based solely on a comparative lineage.
I recall a discussion regarding the Cherokee Freedmen issue and a by blood citizen who was critical of the Freedmen descendants over a rumor that the Freedmen descendants would settle for a cash agreement to walk away from the tribe. The by-blood citizen stated that if the Freedmen descendants asked for x amount of dollars, than a by-blood citizen should be able to get more than x amount to leave the tribe since they were real Indians.
My answer was that maybe they should contact this group of Freedmen descendants and tell them to ask for more money for, even though they were not the same race, their citizenship status was equal.
The Butch Murphy case justifies your immediate re-instatement into the tribe. I also think the BIA should negotiate any lossess that you may have sufferred as a result of this human rights violation.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lee, you are right about using the fact that Butch Muprhy is a tribal member actually helps our case.

But I must point out that if Mr. Murphy has no blood connection to the Band and we do have a blood connection to the Band, than our claim is stronger than his is.

However, because the General Membership, the final authority in matters of tribal law, accepted Mr. Murphy's family as tribal members in 1986 after the Band's Enrollment Committee had turned down their applications for enrollment shows that the General Membership can overrule the Enrollment Committee's decisions.

Taking Mr. Murphy into the tribe contradicts the tribal council's assertion in its 2006 letter to the General Membership that the General Membership didn't have the authority to make enrollment decisions.

This is the illogic the council gave in allowing us, the Hunters, to be disenrolled in 2006 despite the fact that the General Membership had voted to outlaw disenrollment in 2005.

The tribal council in 2006 said that tribal legal precedent backs up the decision to disenroll us.

But what tribal legal precedent was the tribal council citing?

Because the very fact that Butch Murphy is in the tribe today shows clear tribal legal precedent that yes, the General Membership can overrule decisions of the Enrollment Committee.

The fact is there is no legal tribal precedent that says the General Membership cannot overrule decisions of the Enrollment Committee.

The tribal council just made their statement to justify getting rid of us.

Mr. Lee, it is hard though for us to look back at our dienrollment cases and to see Butch Murphy, who sits on the tribal council, sitting and ruling on us who have a blood connection to the tribe.

But the fact that Mr. Murphy is a tribal member and we are not is still another violation of the equal protection clause in Article V of the Pechanga Band's constitution and bylaws.

Anonymous said...

But it was the timing of the tribal council's letter to the General Membership that said that we, the Hunters, were not included in the new law that outlawed disenrollment that was very suspicious.

The letter, dated March 14, 2006, was just two days before the decision of the Enrollment Committee to disenroll us, which was March 16, 2006.

We did appeal the decision to disenroll us to the tribal council but we were only allowed to use the information that we had submitted to the Enrollment Committee.

So we couldn't challenge the tribal council's ruling that we were not be included in the new law that outlawed disenrollment.

Since the deadline had passed to submit new information, we couldn't refute the notion that the General Membership couldn't overrule the decisions of the Enrollment Committee.

Even though, as I said in my last post, Butch Murphy is living proof that the General Membership can in fact overrule decisions of the Enrollment Committee.

By the way, the petition to end diseneollment was passed on July 19, 2005 and at that meeting Chairman Mark Macarro said, "all means all," when he was asked if the petition included us, the Hunters."

So why did the tribal council wait for seven months to notify the general membership that the petition didn't include us and just two days before our disenrollment?

Like I said, very suspicious.

Anonymous said...


I agree with everyhting you have written and I understand the difficulty you must have knowing that persons with less qualifications are not just enjoying equal rights but greater rights than a person with greater qualifications. However,protected the rights of our lessers most assuredly guaruntees that we retain those rights for ourselves.
Pechanga tribal membership/citizenship put through the Pechanga version of "Murphy's Law" would remove any arguments about your legitimacy as citizens of the Tribe/Nation. As for the general membership powers that is still unfinished business that should be brought again to the attention of the Dept of Interior and those Congress members who are concerned.

Luiseno said...

Allen L. Lee said... Pechanga tribal membership/citizenship put through the Pechanga version of "Murphy's Law" would remove any arguments about your legitimacy as citizens of the Tribe/Nation.

This is precisely why the enrollment commettee REFUSED to allow us to bring up just such an argument before them.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but the wolves will not be guarding the henhouse forever.

But for now they are and that is why some sort of outside intervention is needed.

To those who think we are eroding sovereignty by calling for outside authorities to look into things, those who violated our rights and those who did nothing to stop them are the ones who broght this on.

And, the Pechanga Murphy's Law, thank you Mr. Lee for coining that phrase, will be helpful to us.

Because either the both the Murphys and the Hunters are in if the General Membership can rule on matters of enrollment as the 1986 vote on the Murphys indicates and the 2005 vote to end disenrollment concurs with or both the Murphys and the Hunters are out if the 2006 tribal council ruling that the enrollment committee are the only ones who can make enrollment decisions.

As I said, the fact that Butch Murphy is in the tribe today is living proof that the General Membership trumps the enrollment committee.

Does it surprise anyone that when the tribal council claimed there is tribal legal precedent that the General Membership cannot overrule the enrollment committee on membership issues when no such legal precedent exists that THE TRIBAL COUNCIL WAS LYING?