Thursday, May 26, 2016

Rep. Mike Thompson Requests Rep. Nick Rahall Hold Oversight Hearing on ENFORCEMENT of the Indian Civil Rights Act.

REMEMBER WHEN? THANK you Congressman Thompson, for standing UP for what is RIGHT.

It seems our contingent in Washington D.C. as well as Rep. Darrell Issa have gotten the word out. We need a hearing on the enforcement of ICRA.

The Honorable Mike Thompson has requested Rep. Nick Rahall, who is Chairman of the Committee on House Resources, to hold and oversight hearing on the enforcement of the INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

Here is a copy of that letter, and THANK YOU, Rep. Thompson, for standing up for your constituents and for ALL who have been harmed by their tribes.

originally published September 14, 2010.


Anonymous said...

Life long menbers who have been illegally removed from tribal rolls and threatened with banishment or access to their trust property. ICRA to protect indians from civil rights violations. Tribal rangers have even verbalized this position by telling individuals that tribal members have more say. Pechanga reservation was set aside for tribal families and givin 10-20 acre allotments. This fact gave these families rights in this community, not to be violated by a rogue faction of the community. We are citizens and we have rights!

Anonymous said...

It's to bad that some tribal leaders continue to put thier heads in the sand. All people should have fair and impartial treatment. It's really to simple. Tribes do have the right to determine membership, but be fair about it, and legal. If it's really fair and impartial, you will not have a hard time explaining your position. If it's not, then run and hide. No one is above the law, even Tribal law. Custome and tradition trumps all!

t'eetilawuncha! said...

This is all about Tribal identity, land issues, and Billions of dollars. It's bad enough the government forced Indians to live on reserves. All bands are not harmonious, but have greed and power struggles intertwined. These days’ factions are using disenrollment to settle long standing disagreements. Factions are using sovereignty to shield them from these actions. Disenrollment’s of entire clans and families is not custom and tradition.

'aamokat said...

I do object to one point in Congresman Thompson's letter.

The point about some disenrollments being legitimate, which may be technically correct, gives the impression that the times when it has occured without violations of due process, the ICRA, and also internal tribal laws and constitutions is on a par with the violations that have occured not only in California but in tribes accross the United States.

When overwhelmingly that has not been the case as in tribe after tribe tribal citizens' rights have been stepped on far more than they have been upheld.

But Congressman's letter and concern are a definite step in the right direction and I thank him of his efforts.

Allen L. Lee said...

This is why ICRA in in-effective.

"SANTA CLARA PUEBLO et al., Petitioners,
Julia MARTINEZ et al.
No. 76-682.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Nov. 29, 1977.
Decided May 15, 1978

...Majority …
Two distinct and competing purposes are manifest in the provisions of the ICRA: In addition to its objective of strengthening the position of individual tribal members vis-a-vis the tribe, Congress also intended to promote the well-established federal "policy of furthering Indian self- government

...Our reluctance is strongly reinforced by the specific legislative history underlying 25 U.S.C. §1303. This history, extending over more than three years, [FN23] indicates that Congress' provision for habeas corpus relief, and nothing more, reflected a considered accommodation of the competing goals of "preventing injustices perpetrated by tribal governments, *67 on the one hand, and, on the other, avoiding undue or precipitous interference in the affairs of the Indian people." Summary Report 11.
Congress apparently decided that review by way of habeas corpus would adequately protect the individual interests at stake while avoiding unnecessary intrusions on tribal governments.


...Given Congress' concern about the deprivations of Indian rights by tribal authorities, I cannot believe, as does the majority, that it desired the enforcement of these rights to be left up to the very tribal authorities alleged to have violated them. In the case of the Santa Clara Pueblo, for example, both legislative and judicial powers are vested in the same body, the Pueblo Council. See App. 3-5. To suggest that this tribal body is the "appropriate" forum for the adjudication of alleged violations of the ICRA is to ignore both reality and Congress' desire to provide a means of redress to Indians aggrieved by their tribal leaders. [FN6]

...But unless and until Congress makes clear its intention to permit the additional intrusion on tribal sovereignty that adjudication of such actions in a federal forum would represent, we are constrained to find that §1302 does not impliedly authorize actions for declaratory or injunctive relief against either the tribe or its officers.

It's a good oppurtinty for Congress to make clear their intentions about ICRA.

Anonymous said...

I also object to congressman thompsons letter .He dosent mention anything about BANISHMENT OR ILLEGAL MORATORIUM . Although Iam extremly happy about the letter a very good step in the right direction

OPechanga said...

This is the best time for us to HELP people like Rep. Thompson understand more of the underlying issues.

There are addresses on the letter where you can send him information in preparation for his meeting.

It they don't know, we have to tell them.

Anonymous said...

Is this letter real? It looks like someone taped the typed part on his letterhead and made a copy. Well, I hope it is real...

Anonymous said...

Finally, this is what America is all about, everyone likes to think America is about Freedom and Liberty. Well this is first hand that there is no freedom or liberty for Native American's. I pray there is finally justice for ALL American's.

Anonymous said...

Moratorium and banishments are totally different in my eyes. The way I see it is moratorium & banishments are a tribal membership decision,used to fix enrollment issues and to banish rogue members that are treasonous or whom display other malevolent behavior toward a tribe. Moratoriums are usually never a problem if you enroll in your tribe at birth, quite normally tribal memberships do not want to enroll adult members who come running back to their Tribes only when they sniff the almighty $$$. It's like where were these people when we were living in shacks and wearing second hand - hand outs from boxes. There is a need for both on reservations. Disenrollments, I believe is a legal issue that should have an avenue to trek in cases of corruption as what appears to have happened at Pechanga. jmt.

Anonymous said...

Well put, and to the point. Thank you for your post.

Anonymous said...

hmmm...sounds like enrolled by fraud in 79 trying to justify illegal moratorium...more fraud and theft.

Enrollment every Jan...present CIDB!

Enrolled by birth? I was; 1940...and not by fraud...I have CIDB that satisfied legally enrolled criteria for enrollment.

Stop snooker..present documents; not fiction.

For the record..Apis descendants do not qualify for legal enrollment; they were illegally enrolled in '79. What is the punishment for this crime?

Anonymous said...

Ican not speak for others but I have said it before I was in school getting an education so Iwould not have to live in a shack were I grow up do you think you were the only one that lived in a shack if you really did .I lived in a room with a makeshifed wall sleeping on the floor most of the time till I was 16 years old then Iwent to work .and school It is hard to think that you wanted to stay on welfare in stead of working for a living or you to would have gotten a education and went to work instead of waiting for CASINO MONEY I my self have never ran to anyone for money. my family just wants what is ours
by the way were you enrolled at birth or did you show up with your hand open

from a true temecula indian

Anonymous said...

To add to the “Moratorium and banishments are totally different discussion”. So your theory is you should be enrolled at birth, which is fine but it relies solely on your parents enrolling you, in which case why should I not be able to be enrolled simply due to a mistake by my parent? To go further as a minor you can’t really enter into a contract or travel to the reservation, assuming you don’t live there, to enroll yourself, without the assistance of your parents.
So to clarify you feel that if your parent didn’t enroll you in the tribe as a child then once you become as adult you can’t be a Pechanga Indian regardless of your blood connection? Did your parents enroll you before you were 18, if not I guess you can’t be a Pechanga Indian according to your theory?

Anonymous said...

Regarding enrollment at birth and living in shacks and wearing 2nd-hand and many more hands along the way clothing...underwear? no..had to walk with legs close together to keep out drafts.

Dirt, dirt, dirt everywhere

I slept sideways on a double bed with four other siblings; in a shack...
went to school barefoot until I was 12 years old and shared a can of vegetable soup with four other siblings.

You think only reservation kids suffered hardship? Only difference was we did not have access to commodities.

I did not have anyone providing school supplies.

I lived in a place very similar to Pechanga.

Your blaming those not enrolled at birth is both ignorant and malicious. You also are corrupt. Most likely you are either still illegally enrolled or are disenrolled.

Enrollment is every Jan..moratorium is illegal...continuing theft.


Allen L. Lee said...

I find the moratorium and banishment discussions interesting.
However, I just wanted to share a counterpoint to my position about the Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez case. I'll include an excerpt but please visit the link and read the entire statement. I thought it well reasoned.
"Testimony of a Santa Clara Woman
Rina Swentzell*
I am a woman from Santa Clara Pueblo
…I was 39 years old when
the Supreme Court ruled on the Santa Clara v. Martinez1 case. Even then, I wanted
the courts to rule in favor of the tribe -- to rule for tribal sovereignty.
….The next generation of women in my family with whom I talked are the 17 to 20 year olds. They are also affected differently by the tribal stance that explicit or
formal written membership and property ownership follows the male line. The eldest
is the furthest removed, again because of the color of her skin. She maintains a distance and offered a shrug of her shoulders for her opinion. The middle
granddaughter grew up in Santa Clara, speaks Tewa and because she considers Santa Clara her home, feels that she belongs there. Although, she doubts that the Council reciprocates with her sense of belonging. She definitely feels that tribal sovereignty
must be acknowledged over the pain of personal discrimination. Her solution for the membership issue is that membership be determined by residence and participation.
The seventeen-year-old is a full member because her father, my illegitimate son, is a
recognized member of the tribe. She realizes that she has to be careful about whom she marries, but her brothers do not. That angers her, and she also expresses that something needs to be done by the community but not by outsiders or by the American court system.
…What has been introduced by outside thinking is that we have to choose between uncompromising opposites, between male and female dominance, between individual rights or community wellbeing. We cannot have both. In this either/or
world, those who are included must be better than those who are excluded. We are even tempted to think that American law can bring equality by written mandates,
making us forget that we are capable of remembering a system in which focus on relationships might lead us to different solutions.

Anonymous said...

We all believe that tribes should retain their right to determine membership. Where some of us differ in opinion is wether there should be an avenue for the protection of individuals who feel there rights have been violated. Should a faction be held accountable for breaking tribal law, and what avenue should people go to if the tribe has no court system to insure a fair and impartial outcome? The unfortunate outcome is that some rogue factions are putting every tribe, band or tribal communities rights at risk.

The current leadership at Pechanga can do the right thing. Its up to them what the outcome will be, for all our people.

Anonymous said...

Very well put and to the point except for one thing The moritorium of Pechanga is a 15 year moritorium That was to last a few months because of reciept of many applications THE PECHANGA BAND HAVE REFUSED TO enroll the original temecula indians have lied committed fraud ,stolen land and then Banished tosobol family when no crime was committed by them the only crimes committed is from the tribal council whom is the most corrupt of all tribes in history THE BIA wants them OUT the justice is coming and if any members are involved in the land stolen from TOSOBOLS BE PREPARED TO BE CHARGED WITH YOUR CRIMES ALONG WITH THE CURRENT COUNCIL JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,POLYSQWALIS

OPechanga said...

I'm thinking that we have to be prepared for the hearings. I'm sure that testimony will be allowed and it should be even better than what was given at the listening sessions.

You have to name names, details, time frames.

Evidence of conspiracy should be plain.

Start now...

Anonymous said...

to mr banishment and moratorium, you must be a macarro, where were you when their was no casino! marks famous words, your time is coming, i know, god knows, you devils decipile

Anonymous said...

Upon reading these posts, it is clear that their are a lot of excuses for not enrolling in your respective tribes. I believe that you can work, go to school, be a bum and still have time to submit a simple aplication of enrollment. If a person is truly interested in being a member of a Tribe they go promptly enroll themselves, attend the meetings, and contribute positive ideas. I understand that many of the disenrolled did just that but you have to admit that there is a faction that is in it for the allmighty dollar. You can lie to yourselves and deny this but it is what it is. Once again, Moratoriums and banishments are a domestic issue within a Tribe. Now, before anyone starts hating, imagine all the disenrollees getting back into their tribes,don't you think they will open up enrollment, especially after what they've been through. They will be the majority and it will still be a membership decision.

Luiseno said...

" Upon reading these posts, it is clear that their are a lot of excuses for not enrolling in your respective tribes

A lot of reasons? I can see only one, and that is a contrived one in the least. That one person put San Luis Rey (i.e. Luiseno) on there application. No matter that those who disenrolled us also had the same info put down by there ancestors. And yes, I was enrolled way before there was a casino, so were the majority of us.

Allen L. Lee said...

I don't hate you anonymous for the banishment, moratorium or dis-enrollment position. The banishments are absolutely an approriate penal tool but must be used appropriately. Moratoruims are also the appropriate tool of a sovereign to control immigration.
But in the case of the Pechanga moratorium, a well versed poster on this board has made a good case that the Pechanga moratorium is illegal based on the Pechanga constitution.
As for dis-enrollments, they too have a function in sovereign authority, but it must be based on sense and reason, not on unfettered majority rule or acts of vengeance or spite.
Tribal re-organization and self determination acts are still fairly modern. Some people have not been given a timely opportunty to re-connect with their indigenous sovereigns. It may be true that others may be coming back because a casino per-cap might be better than being an un-employed college graduate.
When land allotment occurred during the Dawes Era, similar waves of returnees and unqualified applicants burdened tribes.
For the most part, My opinion is if the dis-enrollments were not based on a legitimate cause of punishment, and involuntary deprivation of citizenship is considered a form a punishment, then they are Human Rights violations, and must be addressed as such.
Criminalizing a deceased ancestor and punishing the living descendant
is not a just cause. If the dis-enrolled lied and said their ancestor was somebody legitimate to establish lineal descent at the time, who later found out was untrue, then a disenrollment based on fraud would be justified.
But the dis-enrolled ancestors were legitimate based on lineal descent rules the time they were enrolled, and no fraud occured.
They were punished retro-actively.

OPechanga said...

Many in the moratorium already had their paperwork in and many always considered themselves part of the tribe even if they weren't enrolled.

In fact, many of the Masiels were NOT on the first tribal rolls, includin the woman who would become chairman. It was her grandmother that tried to cheat the system, laying the groundwork for the Masile Crime Family.

The Tribal Constitution for Pechanga was overturned for a moratorium and the council said that was alright. When the tribe again voted, this time to STOP all disenrollments, which would be the LAW, the council, lead my Mark Macarro said the tribe doesn't have that authority. Lets see, they have the authority to keep people out, but don't have the authority to keep people in?

And you hit right on WHY there is a moratorium. It's a way to control votes and power. Eliminate voting priveleges, keep the power. Imagine the Republicans keeping 25% of the Democrats from voting and making sure that another 10% NEVER get the vote?

'aamokat said...

Anonymous of May 7, 2010 9:57 AM said:

"Upon reading these posts, it is clear that their are a lot of excuses for not enrolling in your respective tribes."

The corruption on the Pechanga enrollment committee prior to our, the Hunters, disenrollment included the committee not processing enrollment applications of people who had their applications in before the deadline for the moratorium.

One of our family members while on the committee was one of the people who alerted the tribal council of the goings on on the committee but the council did nothing about it.

So some of the people who ended up in the moratorium ended up there unlawfully even according to this bogus unconstitutional law.

That this is true is shown by a fairly recent general membership meeing in which the enrollment committee was told not to process applications that had beaten the deadline.

Also, adults were reportedly enrolled before the 2000 election despite the moratorium and within the past two years which shows selective enforcement of the supposed law.

So what about the people who beat the deadline but still aren't enrolled?

Anonymous said...

And you hit right on WHY there is a moratorium. It's a way to control votes and power. Eliminate voting priveleges, keep the power. Imagine the Republicans keeping 25% of the Democrats from voting and making sure that another 10% NEVER get the vote?


creeper said...


creeper said...

....and women.

Anonymous said...

Creeper Iam with you lets all GET to work READY FOR congressional HEARINGS dig UP EVERY DOCUMENT YOU CAN FIND COPY IT GET READY FOR THE FIGHT TO UNITE EXPOSE PECHANGA NOW!!! AND every tribal council that has taken everything from you from every tribe in the United States OF AMERICA

Anonymous said...

something is changing like the wind

Anonymous said...

Is it true that Pechanga is sitting on 5000 applications?

Anonymous said...

look up arrests in pala