Monday, August 23, 2010

Temecula's Lawsuit Against Civil Rights Violator Pechanga Tribe Could Have Statewide Implications

Some people say, let the courts decide. Pechanga may have to open it's books as part of the lawsuit brought by the City of Temecula.

The Press Enterprise has a nice article on this situation, it's a good opportunity for citizens (or, as some Pechanga tribal people call us, "normal people") to comment on the situation too.

In February 2008, California voters approved tribal casino-expansion deals that supporters said would ensure aid for surrounding communities.

The agreements for the first time created a process for tribes, Inland cities and counties to negotiate payments to cover off-reservation impacts such as extra police, increased traffic and other expenses.

Temecula City Council Says: Pechanga Owes the City $2 Million

The dispute centers on a March agreement between the tribe and city. It calls for the tribe to pay the city at least $2 million annually to cover the city's casino-related expenses, such as police.

In addition, the tribe agreed to contribute $10 million to improve an Interstate 15 interchange near the casino.

The city expected the tribe to pay $2 million by June 30. But the tribe contended the agreement wasn't finalized until talks with Riverside County concluded
. Nice, the city and county are two separate entities, the tribal council is trying to link them. But, the tribe also installed the slot machines BEFORE the agreement was completed.

Citizens of Temecula should stand shoulder to shoulder with their elected officials. Simply REFUSE to patronize the casino and restaurants and CALL Pechanga and tell them that you are not coming until they settle with the city. That way, the tribe will KNOW why their revenues are suffering. Pechanga lost a lot of "good karma" when they brutally terminated over 25% of their tribe and then, laid off 800 employees. Time for that karma to come around, don't you think?


Anonymous said...

The City, The County, Temecula Indian, Pechanga Indian. Sound familiar, this is what Mark does to get his way. Can we say abusing tribal sovereignty?

Anonymous said...

It may not be abusing tribal sovereignty in this case, just double dealing and backstabbing..

I'll stay away from the casino and tell my friends to do the same.

Anonymous said...

How is it double dealing and backstabbing? The agreement says it doesn’t go into effect until an agreement is reached with the county.
Here’s an example if your uncle said I'll pay for your college expenses then you don’t go to college are you going to complain that he won’t just write you a check?
The agreement had a clear stipulation that the city knew about and agreed to.

Anonymous said...

The agreement to pay the city $ is made. Now the agreement has to be reached with the county. Pechanga PDC could have held the new machines until the agreements had been reach also. One Soveirgn (sp) to another.

Anonymous said...

The agreement to pay the city money was made but, and it says the city gets paid once the agree is reached with the county. So per the agreement with the city it is not yet effective.

I agree that the PDC could have held back the new machines but they were not required to by any of the agreements.

Anonymous said...

If we had two children going to college, and one chose not to follow the aggreement. We would not hold both accountable for the one that was slacking. Temecula stepped up to the plate, riverside has not. Pechanga should pay the one who stepped up first. Following the spirit of the law, not the letter goes a long ways. Something the current tribal council could learn.

Anonymous said...

The spirit of the law is when both agreements are reach then both get paid. That was the intention and understanding of both the tribe and the city. The reason for this is the contracts and payments have intermingling items, like law enforcement which is provided by both the city and the county. In the city’s agreement funds pass through the city to the county.

The bottom line is the city agreed to the terms in which they weren’t going to get paid unless an agreement was reached with the county; and that is both the spirit and the law of the agreement.

I do have to point out that neither your or my example really covers the situation that well. Mine doesn’t include the multi-party element and yours doesn’t include the need for the 3 parties to agree uniformly as a result of overlapping elements.

Anonymous said...

If the city really was under that understanding, they would wait it out. In a 5-0 vote they are pressing to go to court. The real bottom line is Pechanga could pay it, since they will eventually. I also believe that the current Chairmen of Pechanga insighted the vote outcome with his verbage to the city council. The Pechanga people have been blinded by this man and his arrogance. The Temecula city, county of Riverside and Pechanga are all Soveirgns and Pechanga council could treat them as such. Mr. Macarro needs to look in the mirror on that one. No Soveirgn is more important than the other. He is no more Pechanga than say the Hunter family.

Anonymous said...

while waiting for this to wend its way through the courts people should just quit going. that is the best way to let Pechanga know they will use their dollars elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

If all of you can unite for Temcula why wont you for your civil rights Joe Liska Has been warrior for all but yet there has not been support for his banishment and violations against him as you all have had pechanga take everything from you where is your Support for his cause BELIEVE ME THE FEDERAL COURT IS PAYING ATTENTION AND SO IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA please be there in NUMBERS FOR ALL OF YOU MAKE THEM SEE!!!



Petitioner CASE NO. 08-CV-1872



Anonymous said...

as for MR M learning any thing decent or fair not going to happen never will and he was reelected to carry out the thieving of The descendents and rightful Temecula Indians concerning Temecula he and the corrupt new thieves elected they will continue to push the power to the limit --but will fall and fall they will the united states govenment wont let them get away with this

Anonymous said...

It's too bad you all can't separate your feeling toward the tribe from being reasonable. The agreement/the law is on the side of the tribe, and the city was completely aware of this clause.

As for the city's vote, I'm pretty sure they know they don't have any power and they wanted to do anything they can to get paid and to try to act tough. The joke of this whole thing for the city is they are making all this mess and spending money and I'm sure the agreement with the county will be reach far sooner than this lawsuit would be resolved. And for the suggestion that people stop going to the casino until this is resolved; well the money is for the purpose of mitigating the impact of the casino, if people really stopped going to the casino there would be no reason the tribe would need to pay the city because there would be no additional traffic and no need for cops.

Anonymous said...

That would kill two birds with one stone. Stop the cash flow, and it will kill the greed.

This whole mess could have been stopped had the tribal council just did the right thing, from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

how come there isnt a sign anywhere in front of the Casino that says that people are entering a different country and that they have no rights when entering? the Casino even on Indian land?...across the street there are many houses for sale, so I would guess that the area across the street isnt Indian land?...shouldnt there be a sign "entering Indian land"...beware you have no State given rights????

Luiseno said...

It is my understanding that the Tribe entered into a NEW agreement with the city to pay by the end of July, which has not been meet.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that this new agreement was not contingent upon the county completing there side of the agreement.

Anonymous said...

If there was another agreement that would make sense, but I'm not sure what incentive the tribe would have to sign an additional agreement that removed a clause regarding the contract effective date. Plus there have been a lot of stories written and I haven't seen any of them list that information, but who knows.

'aamokat said...

"how come there isnt a sign anywhere in front of the Casino that says that people are entering a different country and that they have no rights when entering? the Casino even on Indian land?...across the street there are many houses for sale, so I would guess that the area across the street isnt Indian land?...shouldnt there be a sign "entering Indian land"...beware you have no State given rights????"

The casino does sit on reservation land but it is seperated from the rest of the reservation by the houses, the Great Oak high school and city streets.

Ironic that it is on a corner of Pablo Apish's land grant and the tribe disowned some of his desecendants.

The small majority on the enrollment committee and on the tribal council concluded that Pechanga is the subset of the Temecula Indians so if that is the case as someone pointed out, then why does Pechanga get to be the sole beneficiary of benefits from Temecula Indian lands not part of the Pechanga valley such as the casino?

If in fact there are two seperate groups of Indians from the old Temecula Indian villages, then they should be joint heirs of Temecula Indian lands.

And not just federally alloted lands on the reservation that non members still currently own.

Luiseno said...

I am not 100% sure myself on them entering into a new agreement, but I have heard from a reliable source (i.e. my brother) that the Tribe agreed to make the payment by the end of July.

This they have not done.