Monday, February 8, 2010

Who IS James Riley and Why Did Pechanga Choose Him?

Why did Pechanga choose James Riley? What relationship does he have with Pechanga prior to becoming their insurance broker?

From their website:

James William Riley
Years of Experience – 20

Jim Riley has a distinguished insurance background with over 20 years experience. During this time he has become a specialist in the Construction Industry, Native American Operations and large Property placements. Other areas of expertise include Manufacturing, Distribution, Auto Dealerships and Employment Services. He is a premier agent in Southern California and is expanding nationwide thru a subsidiary, R.Garrison Strategic Risk Management. Working diligently for his clients has allowed him to one of the top agents in the Southern California. Jim has been on the forefront in developing unique programs to meet the needs of his clients.

“I enjoy strategic planning with my clients, isolating problem areas, and using technology and my own experience to provide customized solutions.”


Anonymous said...

I've seen comments that Jim Riley is a good man. What led him astray?

What does he know about more workings at Pechanga? Wgat does his co-workers and employees have to say about him?

Is he a criminal mastermind, or was he led astray? Or are the charges totally bogus?

Anonymous said...

The charges are TOTALLY BOGUS, this is an innocent man who has done nothing but give to many, many people in need. Friends, family and people he never met received life changing acts of kindness from Jim!

Anonymous said...

I've seen this same comment over and over. Can you be more specific?

If he is innocent, then WHO is at fault? Riley, the PDC, the tribal council? WHO?

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, we are not allowed to share any more info at this time.

Hopefully, all the facts will be brought to the table and everyone will realize that they have the wrong guy.

Anonymous said...

Who is the RIGHT guy... ?

OPechanga said...

Totally bogus? Are you saying that DA Pacheco got it wrong?

Did Pechanga withhold evidence?

How did they pay more for insurance without Riley Garrison and Associates.

Anonymous said...

The right guys are Robinson and Riley. There may have been criminal activities going on without them knowing. I don't doubt that at all. There was nothing illegal that took place. A gift was implied as bribery. There is a difference between someone hiding from their gift giving and someone telling people they gave it. Riley is not hiding anything. Why would a guy, already hugely successful and making a lot of money by working his tail off and being one of the most trustworthy broker's, decide to one day, with a spotless record, to pay a friend off? He was alreaday making good money apart from Pechanga. He's been invovled in helping people in Haiti(before earthquake), the community, and people in dire straits. It doesn't add up. Pechanga is trying to smear these guys and pin-em to the wall. It's the DA's office that is doing what Pechanga wants. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I believe these 12+ casinos have there hands a little too far in our justice systems in Riverside County.(which brings up another point) How can Pechanga think for a second that they can prosecute through our court systems when they are "sovereign"? It's simply UNFAIR!! Listen to this. I think Pechanga is the one "hiding" things. Copy and paste this in your addtress bar or type it in.

Anonymous said...

This man is innocent and anyone who looks into this knows it. It's amazing to me how much can be done to ruin someones life before a trial even begins. This is irresponsible and demands an investigation on the authorities involved! The truth will be told as the evidence comes out. Shame on everyone involved in prosecuting Mr. Riley. Don't we live in a country that says we are innocent until proven.....what?Guilty. This looks like guilty until proven innocent. I hope you're happy Pechanga!

-Different Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the above poster. That link really spills the beans! The John and Ken show at KFI 640. Great, Great, Great!

Pechanga Member 1130 said...

This has been widely reported. The LEGISLATORS have the responsibility to report their 'gifts'.... This is standard procedure for businesses.

OP wrote on this last week......

Jerry Brown is taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from tribes...

'aamokat said...

Innocent until proven guilty? Well that sure wasn't the case in our disenrollment proceedings and regarding the moratorium as well.

Francis Miranda reportedly said when she refused to process certain applications for enrollment for certain families, "I don't care how many signatures there are, if I don't think there is a bloodline, I am not going to process them."

And this was before any disenrollment challenges were started so did Francis took it upon herself to keep people from being enrolled?

Because of Pechanga's money influence are Mr. Riley and Mr. Robinson just about convicted before they even are charged?

And have they officially been charged with any crimes yet?

Anonymous said...

POLENA HUNTER was a white man. He was listed with many children..He got an allotment in his name.

Question: Was he married or common-law husband to Maria Hoppish?

Many many years later Paulina Hunter appeared.

It may be that all those Hunter children were really Maria Hoppish's children as well?

She appears just above Hunter on census, however she does not list Hunter children.

Was Polena Hunter just another fraud?opportunist?

pechanga said...

Regarding Frances...People very familiar with Frances, Ruth etal says they claim Torres Martinez clan connection.

Irene Vasquez was listed as daughter of Vasquez. If Francisca was Mexican and Vasquez is Mexican...Irene is Mexican.

Who is Jennie Miranda's biological mother?

'aamokat said...

"POLENA HUNTER was a white man. He was listed with many children..He got an allotment in his name."

I have been waiting for someone to bring that one up as that was a error on the part of the 1893 census taker as on every other census in the 1890's Paulina (with various spellings of her first name) is listed as wife.

In fact I was going to post that myself as proof that some errors, only one of a very few regarding the Hunters and far far fewer than the conflicting information regarding the Masiel/Basquez family, were in some of the census records.

She was the wife of Thomas G Hunter, who was himself a white man, and they are both on all of the birth records of their children and as I remember, as my census copies are on my old computer, Thomas G.(they had a son named Thomas A) is listed as husband on some of the other censuses in the 1890s.

And no Paulina did not appear many years later as she died in 1899 so I don't know how our anonymous friend came of with that one as there is nothing in the records that says differently and there is plenty of proof she died before 1900.

Maria Hoppish was living in the Hunter household in 1893 and although it is possible she was related, I have not found anything that verfies this.

Don't you think the enrollment committee would have used that against us if there was any truth to Paulina not even being a woman let alone not being an Indian?

By the way, Paulina is listed as a female and head of family in the allotment records so overwhelmingly it is clear the 1893census entry was incorrect.

And she is also verifed as being a woman and Pechanga in the 1915 probate and other testimony from tribal members of the period.

So no, our anonymous detective, you did not find the "smoking gun" against our tribal indenity.

Paulina's marriage to Thomas G was not that close as Thomas is listed as living in Los Angeles in the 1870 census and Paulina was not listed in his household.

The reason being is Paulina would not let go of her people and she was living at one of the old Temecula village sites, the Pauba Ranch, which is verified in the probate records.

'aamokat said...

Ruth Masiel is Jennie's mother. Jenny was married to a Miranda so she is only a Miranda by marriage.

t'eetilawuncha! said...

For over 100yrs. Paulina Hunter and her family had been recognized by her people as Pechanga indian. Now a corrupt BIA, tribal government and small faction produce lies and misinformation to tarnish our people. We even have a person who posts CDIB cards are the rule of thumb. Another person uses a partial list as the golden key. What happened to elder recognition? True Luiseno is a true democracy. Power of the people. CDIB cards from the white man does not make you who you are, its in your heart. If your indian, act like it. We may not all get along, but we should always help one another.

By the time Pechanga reservation was set aside, our people had sufferd almost a 100yrs of brutality at the hands of the spanish invaders. Several clans had formed triblets, and carried on with custom and tradition. Pechanga is a reservation of Mission indians. Get over it. If the agents called you a name it stuck, same with the padres. If the mispelled your name it stuck.

The real question is why did our elders not dispute this when they could have? Because they knew how to act.

Anonymous said...

How funny of the person who stated Paulina of being a white man. When I came across that census, I took it to mean she was "married to a white man". I found it funny they stated that.

It is quite ironic that once a guy is stuck in an orange suit, he starts to look guilty. But I do agree, how can Pechanga use the everybody else court system when they have a problem? I don't see other nations coming in to borrow our tax paying facilities.

'aamokat said...

But maybe our anonymous detective is still convinced that Paulina was indeed a white man who stole land from Indians even though it is obvious one entry in one census, 1893, was in error that is contradicted by a mountain of credible evidence.

But that is how conspiracy theories go, someone finds one piece of misinforation and runs with it.

Hey detective, try the Ohio connection, something the CPP tried to pass off as evidence against us that even the biased enrollment committee threw out.

We have already answered that one many times in the archives but if you are searching for the "holy grail" against us, try that one as well and we will answer it again, no sweat.

Funny, even our CPP resident critic(s) never bring that one up anymore.

Anonymous said...

go to

click on Polena Hunter's name and you will see that wife is named Maria.

Don't be paranoid; not looking for smoking gun.

If Polena Hunter was Paulina Hunter; what was her mother's name?

I am really helping you...I have become fond of many of your clan.

Don't you think that if Polena Hunter was really husband of Maria Hoppish;it would clear Hunter?

Virtual inspection reveals more information than just looking regular information...virtual enables one to unveil more information.

Anonymous said...

So if we are looking at the 1893 census that lists Polena Hunter as a white man and male. I think it should be known that Maria Hoppish is listed then her 2 children then Polena and her children. I'm not sure why you would think they are married.

Now moving forward Paulina Hunter was listed as a female and the mother of her children on the 1894, 1895, 1897, 1898, 1999 Pechanga censuses. Plus, she was given an allotment on the reservation in 1897.

So your point I guess is that either in 1893 they wrote the wrong information or that Polena Hunter and Pualina Hunter are different people. Based on your theory Polena Hunter I guess was a white man and Paulina Hunter which all of the Hunter family comes from was a female Pechanga Indian.

'aamokat said...

The 1893 entry that Paulina (Polena) was a white man is incorrect and the spelling, done by a spanish speaking census taker, is phonetic and as in other years Paulina's first name is spelled several different ways in the censuses but pronounced the same way.

So Paulina and Polena are the same person but it was, as I said before, just a mistake on the part of the census taker and another mistake on that particular census is that both Thomas G and Thomas A are listed as Paulina's children when in reality the first one was her husband and the second one was her son.

It is just a minor inaccuracy among entries that all match in the other years.

Maria Hoppish was a person in the household in 1893 and if you look at a lot of those census records you will notice that they don't always say who is married to whom so no she wasn't married to anyone in the Hunter household. Who she was married to is anybody's guess.

It is well documented that Thomas G and Paulina were married and had six children: William, Thomas A, George, Samuel, Mary Ann, and Matilda.

William died as a youth and George and Samuel did not have any children.

All of the Hunter family descendants are from Thomas A, Mary Ann, and Matilda.

These facts, especially the name of Paulina's husband and children, are verified in the 1915 probate testimony of Dolores Tortuga for Paulina's allotment and in other records.

So, as I said, one misprint of information on one census record is not a big deal considering all of the other information matches up from more than one creible source.

You know over 100 years ago this minor descrepency was not even worth bringing up so it shouldn't be significant now.

Also, Dr. John Johnson, in his report to the enrollment committee on the Hunter family, didn't think that one entry was significant and, at least in this one instance, the enrollment committee agreed and it had no bearing on even their biased decision against us.

OPechanga said...

Not to mention the fact that people who were ALIVE when Paulina Hunter was, gave depositions.

That is TRUE ORAL history.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

How do you know Riley is innocent?

What do YOU KNOW and what can RILEY tell?

Has he spoke to the FBI? WILL HE?