Tuesday, February 3, 2015

BIA ERROR: Documents EXPOSE Trask Family as NOT Being San Pasqual Indians.

At the recent protest as the San Pasqual Indian reservation in Valley Center, CA, the recurring theme was that the TRASK family did NOT belong.  And true San Pasqual people were being kept from their rightful place in the tribe.

Now, Documents up at Scribd layout the evidence that the Trask family has NO blood of the band and the BIA erred in letting them into the tribe.

Were they just awarded rights for being caretakers?  From REZTALK on Facebook:

Does this make them San Pasqual Indians or any of their descendants San Pasqual Indians because they and their family's were placed here and allowed to lived here as renters and caretakers of the reserve, That don't make you a San Pasqual Indian because your Trask family was the caretakers in 1910 who happen to have their names added to a census record in 1910 with the San Pasqual Indians

Take a look at the evidence at the link above.   JOIN in the fight with YOUR continued visits to this blog and SHARE on FB and Twitter.


Anonymous said...

hope bia does right thing.boot them out if not san pasqual

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

It seems that the motive for the Alto's disenrollment is not entirely based on greed. Maybe it was also to keep prying eyes away from the enrollment status of the Lawsons. The lawyers really have to expand their research when they are filing motions.

I said before that BIA decisions are inconsistent because they sometimes use a holistic reading of tribal law, and sometimes use a selective reading of tribal law. The BIA also has no problems ignoring that disenrollees have the right to equal protection under the law. The BIA allows tribes to challenge the blood degree of some members while ignoring the fact that other members have the exact same flaws in their blood degree.

If the attorneys had uncovered this fact about Allen Lawson, they could have used it as evidence that the same standard was not applied to all members universally. In view of this evidence, it is arbitrary and capricious for the BIA to affirm a disenrollment order for the Altos based on the adoptive status of their lineal antecedent while allowing Allen Lawson to remain enrolled.

Of course the BIA will respond that they were not asked to review the blood degree of Allen Lawson, and only the Altos right to belong was challenged. The lawyers have to think ahead and preempt these kinds of arguments.

According to the tribe's governing document, the BIA is responsible for enrollment decisions at San Pasqual, It was the BIA's duty to perform a thorough examination of all member's enrollment status before upholding a disenrollment order.

My guess is that if the BIA had informed the tribe that in order to disenroll some members, all members would have to undergo review of their right to belong, that the disenrollment order would have been rescinded.

The BIA created most of these problems. They made the blood degree determinations. They placed people on reservations. They reviewed the governing documents and certified them. Now they want to wash their hands of it and let the tribes fight it out internally. Over and over again they uphold disenrollments by finding a way to reasonably refrain from intervening.

I say that from this day forward, anytime that there is a disenrollment decision from a tribe, that all of their tribal leaders must undergo the same review as the disenrollees. Do this research before the appeals are filed and be prepared to show that the standards are being applied universally.

We have done this research on the tribal leaders of Pala. I wish we had done it before the appeals were filed. Not a single member of the Pala EC can meet the standard they applied to the disenrollees.

Anonymous said...

I think the alto case will be and should b overturned based on hearsay.not enough evidence to prove marcus alto was adopted.From the evidence I have read theres nothing there 4 echohawk to have made that ruling.

White Buffalo said...

I used to think that being Indian meant that a person would adopt the ways of the people and lived with the tribe. Participation in the community lead to establishing a place in the tribe. Resulting in marriage and permanence within the group. Indians did not use rules and roles to say who was in the tribe. These things that are being used to define tribal membership are there more to keep longstanding members out. So what if they were there as care-takers in 1910. I would ask did they stay there on the land? Did they have kids that grew up there and interacted with the tribe. If they have then they have a valid claim. One just as strong as another person who's family was there in 1910 and who lived next to them. That is an Indian community as defined by nature not man. Of coarse this is just my oppinon.

Blue_Dove said...

Reinstatement_Restitution , I do not understand this statement "If the attorneys had uncovered this fact about Allen Lawson, they could have used it as evidence that the same standard was not applied to all members universally."
Firstly, the facts about The Lawson family are well known. Its even recognized by several BIA officials and The Tribe has chosen to not challenge his families heritage. Secondly, how would showing a standard prove or disprove anything. This case is under APA review. The burden is on the BIA. The Tribe is a bystander. The AS-IA should have never decided on the Alto matter. Mr Larry Echohawks lack of experience and ignorance of BIA protocol has created a conundrum of issues. That is why he was forced into retirement and has resided in the Phillipines the last five years......I don't believe that we can challenge protocol of the BIA through an APA appeals. Just my thoughts

Anonymous said...

so blue dove what are ure thoughts on the alto case do they have a case against bia.or they atta luck.also what case is under apa review. thxs

Frustrated_Tribal_Member said...

The entire problem is the BIA doesn't have a standard on dealing with Disenrollments. I think they need to at the minimum follow ICRA. ICRA has served no purpose when disenrollments occur. Its almost as if your guilty before proven innocent.

BlueDove, by APA review do you mean the Alto case because the Lawson family has never been formally challenged, although there is a tremendous amount of research that has been done to show their lineage.
APA(administrative procedures act) review is a "federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law."
I believe the Alto case is rare because only 5% of over 500 Tribes within the United States membership is determined by the BIA. As Reinstatement has said before any case that can change this ridiculous wave of disenrollments is good for Indian Country.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

The BIA standard of review for decisions is based on an interpretation of tribal law. The reason the standard appears to be a moving target is because each tribe’s laws are a different standard. Also the BIA is inconsistent with how they interpret tribal law. Sometimes they take a wide view of all the laws and ordinances. Sometimes they take a narrow view and look at just the laws that specifically pertain to the dispute.

In addition to the inconsistency, the BIA gives deference to the Tribe’s interpretation of its own laws. In actual practice the BIA conflates the tribal leaders with the tribe, so the interpretation that gets deference is that of the tribal leaders.

I do not have the San Pascal Articles of Association, so my statements are based on the references cited in the decision issued by the Ninth Circuit Court. Still no matter what the tribe, the membership eligibility requirements that are stated in the governing document must be applied equally to all applicants.

The BIA cannot pretend that only those whose membership is being challenged are subject to review. So I say that appellants must demand the universal application of enrollment standards when filing appeals, or face the fact that there may be some in their tribe who fail to meet the requirements, but whose membership is not challenged.

I have not read the original appeal filed by the Altos, so correct me if I am wrong, but the appeal dealt with the improper decision making by the BIA for failing to uphold the 1995 decision on the membership of Marcus Alto, Sr., and denial of due process to the disenrollees. It is possible that if the original appeal had also challenged the discriminatory application of eligibility standards and submitted the lineage and blood degree evidence of the Trask family as support, then the BIA would have been compelled to consider the Trask’s membership status as well as the Altos.

So my comments are directed towards those who are currently in the appeal process, or who will be facing disenrollment in the future. I use the Alto’s case as an example of how to proceed so that appellants can take advantage of their own tribal law.

It is probably too late for the Altos to claim discrimination even though equal treatment under the law is part and parcel of due process. It would not be reasonable for the BIA to consider facts not in evidence or not part of the administrative record of the appeal.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this the family that Irene Muntcy in the riverside B.I.A. put in as members and is married in to and is now helping Robert Eben cover the corruption in the Riverside B/I/A/ office.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, everything you just stated is wrong.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

We are all caught in the conundrum. The BIA uses tribal law as the standard of review for decisions which is reasonable since it is the only law that is applicable. But the BIA says they have no power to enforce tribal law, and that they can't provide adequate remedy for violations of tribal law.

In the Alto’s case this is untrue since the Tribe delegated the authority over enrollment to the BIA. The BIA can reinstate all the disenrollees simply by notifying the Tribe that they don’t have the power to disenroll persons whose membership has been established by the authority of the BIA.

Can the BIA compel the tribe to share revenue with the reinstated members? This is open to argument. There is an allocation agreement between the Tribe and the BIA for the distribution of revenue to members. The BIA could find the Tribe in violation of that agreement if the Tribe refuses to share revenue with reinstated members. The BIA could then rule that all the revenue must be put into a managed trust to insure equitable distribution.

The BIA won’t do this. They won’t do anything. Instead they will play the delay game because there is no order that compels them to do anything at this point.

It is evident that the BIA wants disenrollments. Their entire decision making process is biased toward support for disenrollments. Even when they issue a decision that disenrollees should remain enrolled, they claim that they cannot interfere with a Tribe’s right to determine its own membership. They wait for the disenrollees to go to court where the BIA is protected by the APA.

We need better legal strategies to foil this delay process. It is imperative for the continuation of Indian tribes and culture. Such effort would not be necessary if the BIA opposed disenrollment, or if tribes followed their own laws.

Maybe we need to develop another argument that deals with the BIA supporting tribal leaders that violate tribal laws. How do we get the BIA and the Court to measure civil rights abuse and violations of tribal law equally with the promotion of tribal self determination?

Anonymous said...

The Lawyer has exposed the Trasks. Not only has the entire genealogy been put together with certified documents, but the challenge has been served on the tribe, served on Riverside, served on Sacramento and served on Washington D.C. The Trask challenge was published in the press last November. It is published on Facebook Reztalk. What takes so long is that the Bureau has to acknowledge their mistake in enrolling the non-San Pasqual Trasks. That is a bitter political pill to swallow.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

After Larry Echohawk reviewed all of the evidence, that Francs Muncy failed to review, because they are related by marriage, the Alto's were enrolled. Echohawk determined they should be disenrolled because they did not possess San Pasqual blood. The Alto's appealed and lost. They filed a Federal suit, which they can do because the BIA is a Federal Agency and that Federal Agency oversee's enrollment in the San Pasqaual Tribe. The Alto case is pending before the Federal Court in San Diego . . . and there should be a ruling soon.

Blue_Dove said...

Anonymous I think you are confused by the events that happened with San Pasqual Tribe.

Anonymous said...

what happens if court rules in altos favor.will the bia act on this ruling.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

I think it is good that the challenge to the Trask's right to belong has been put forth. There was no mention of a discriminatory application of enrollment eligibility standards in the decision on the motion for summary judgment. That means the court was not asked to rule on this claim.

The BIA will seek to narrow the scope of the review. They will try to limit the administrative record. They will delay, and then delay some more. They will say their decision is reasonable when in fact it is clearly biased, and even though they know it will lead to civil rights violations. They will do anything they can to support disenrollments. This has been made evident throughout the numerous actions in Indian Country.

My point is that challenging the right to belong of the Trasks is not the same as making it the main argument in an appeal. We have seen so many of these appeals seek to establish that the disenrollees have a right to belong and that the decision to terminate their membership is a violation of tribal law, or due process, or outside the authority of the tribal leaders.

These arguments have been defeated over and over again. The BIA lets the tribal leaders say what the law means. The BIA will not interfere with the right of tribe's to determine their membership. The tribe claims sovereign immunity and can't be sued.

This argument of discrimination in the application of eligibility standards has the merit of being based on tribal law. It cannot be interpreted as something other than a fair and just reading of the law. The tribe's sovereignty is not challenged nor is its right to determine membership according to the laws of the tribe.

The BIA will be compelled to answer this argument if it is the main argument of an appeal. Otherwise they will seek to address some other argument that will allow them to support the disenrollment. Past actions are the best predictor of future actions. They will continue to do what they have been doing until faced with an argument that doesn't give them the option to defer to the tribal leaders.

Blue_Dove said...

Reinstatement has said "The BIA could find the Tribe in violation of that agreement if the Tribe refuses to share revenue with reinstated members."
The BIA will be forced to act by court order and by their fiduciary duty to all Tribal Members.
The Tribe can choose not to abide, however this decision WILL harm the business relationship with the United States government. ie casino , water right settlements etc.

Blue_Dove said...

Reinstatement. "They will continue to do what they have been doing until faced with an argument that doesn't give them the option to defer to the tribal leaders."
ie Alto v Black

Anonymous said...

I think its funny that this site is against disenrollments but is advertising a disenrollment. I haven't read the paperwork and I care less but its like me being part of PETA while wearing a fur coat, against gun laws while carrying an AK-47, Pro-Life and getting an abortion, Against homosexuality but I marry my same gender.. you get the gist.

miguel said...

So there trying to get enrolled so they can disenroll another family? This crap is never going to stop.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

Blue Dove,
Alto v. Black is unique in that the BIA has authority over enrollment at San Pasqual. As has been said, Larry Echohawk made a serious error in upholding the disenrollments. We shall see what how the court decides, and what instructions are given to the BIA.

To Anonymous and miguel:
You have completely misunderstood the matter. The Altos are just trying to show that the reason for their disenrollment is unjust because there are people enrolled in the tribe who have no blood of the band. The tribe should apply their eligibility requirements to all members fairly instead of selectively choosing a family to harm.

Anonymous said...

If you review the actual pleadings filed in the Federal Court by the Alto family, the temporary restraining order preventing the final act of disenrollment, is based on the fact they do not qualify under 25 CFR 48, which IS the San Pasqual enrollment statute. After the tribe objected to Frances Muncy being involved because she is relating by marriage, Elise Lucero, who sits at the desk next to Frances, approved their enrollment under 25 CFR 76. They all but admit this in their pleadings. So, at the end of the day, in THIS case, NOT like other disenrolled natives across the country, the Alto's have admitted they NEVER qualified for enrollment under the San Pasqual enrollment statute. They NEVER belonged. They don't belong now.

blue_dove said...

Anonymous. You have merely given an assumption of what you think. Don't worry your pretty little brain. The courts will resolve this issue.

Anonymous said...

You are right. We won't worry out pretty little heads about it. If the government doesn't prevail at this next ruling, here is the evidence they missed, which will be submitted:

Go to google. Put in John Peabody Harrington Smithsonian.
Go to manuscripts and microfilm.
Then click on microfilm, Volume 3, Southern California and basin. Then click on roll 169.
Diegueno. Go to page 33/49. Slide No. 1 begins with an interview of Maria Alto. Go to slide No. 2. On the page on the right hand side the interview continues. There is a notation at the top that indicates the number 10, which is circled. Go to the very bottom of the page. This was noted during October 1925 interview with Maria Alto, "Marcus Alto is Maria's ADOPTED son, lives at Escondido and his wife and 4 children." So there you have it, a 1925 interview with Maria Alto in which she indicates Marcus is ADOPTED. He is NOT a native San Pasqual Indian.


Come on now! You Refined,educated scholarly Natives, We all know that the BIA is responsible" for enrollment decisions and issues on San Pasqual reservation period! Now the piper is here" and they know it!.. And yes, its is normal and abnormal for the Bureau to take its, sweet time to acknowledge their ignorant mistakes and dumb actions,and meanwhile when they are stuffing there fat obese faces with food in capitol City and going to thunder valley casino lobby bar..The native groups are Multiplying and Conjuring strategies against them . So please Allow them to take there sweet fat time, so that thee native anonymous groups have stretch to pull there names and covers and make mockeries of them, just like Fletcher,Munchies(muncey), and thief Allen and his siter Chaka Kahn Calac. Sooner or later when they will finish 'defecating there food on California then they will have the time to perform an examination of all member's enrollments on Indian Time... by then, Washington had already done it for them ........ .And trust me Today's Indians can not be pushed to the rocks' We use rules now,and rulers, protests, Chess and guns, rocks, sticks~and lets not forget the White mans mental skills, to Get the dam point Across!. Mount up' San Pasqual Kumeyaays its going to get Nasty....

smokeybear said...

When is the BIA going do whats right with Pechanga?