We've posted extensively about the FOIA issues researcher Emilio Reyes has been having with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. NOW, through a subsequent FOIA REQUEST we have uncovered more evidence of BIA wrongdoing in handling tribal records. This time at the Riverside Office. Virgil Townsend was the supervisor of Riverside in the 80's.
As we proceed, bear in mind that a Pechanga tribal member, was employed by the BIA and elders say that Irehne Basquez Scearce, had made changes to the 1940 census while under their employ.
WHY? Because she and her splinter group cohorts wanted to USE the 1940 census as the basis for tribal membership.
WHY? Because her family was NOT on the original Pechanga censuses like Paulina Hunter was.
WHY? Because they aren't really PECHANGA descendants
The tribe reportedly voted her OFF the enrollment committee for this disgraceful act, yet the then chairwoman who is currently disenfranchised Jennie Masiel Miranda REFUSED to kick her off the committee. Miranda is the NIECE of Scearce. FAMILY Trumps Truth.
Concerning the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Census. we have two records shown, one, from the National Archives which shows on page 51, I'm going to embed this one (Click to enlarge)
The BIA's version they sent to the Archive is different than what they released to Reyes. Forgive the layout, Here's the version the BIA sent:
Questions arise from both first pages:
1. How is it that the Leivas family could FORGET they have children from 9-14 years old?
2. Why would the changes be handwritten, if not added later?
3. Who could change them?A Leivas family member worked at the BIA
4. Why would the handwritten information be REDACTED?
5. Why were the Basquez family entered as VASQUEZ?
NOW, LOOK on PAGE 2 of the second, because this is HISTORY MAKING and worthy of a shaman predicting the future.
On page two of the 1940 census, that the BIA sent for a FOIA response, there are ADDITIONS to the 1940 census.
People born up to 40 YEARS after the census, magically were added. How can that BE? The BIA couldn't even HIDE the evidence of corruption here? And WHY would their STILL BE REDACTIONS? Many of the entries are STILL alive, wouldn't the same rules apply? Or could the redaction be to cover a former employee of the agency who added FAMILY.
p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;" >1940 Pechangapg51 by Original Pechanga on Scribd