tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post2832190228135238131..comments2024-03-28T06:01:57.947-04:00Comments on <center>Original Pechanga Blog</center>: TRIBAL DISENROLLMENT: Robinson Rancheria Moves Forward with DisenrollmentsOPechangahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10687743661360604165noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-22288185384966325722008-12-24T10:55:00.000-05:002008-12-24T10:55:00.000-05:00In 2007 Carl Artman, then head of the BIA, was ask...In 2007 Carl Artman, then head of the BIA, was asked on a call in show that exact question.<BR/><BR/>Who can make tribes follow their own laws if they choose not to?<BR/><BR/>His response was for the injured parties to seek relief within the court system or internally within their tribes.<BR/><BR/>So he didn't really answer the question.<BR/><BR/>But what are we to do if as disenrolled people we have no standing within our tribes and outside courts so far say they have no jurisdiction to hear cases that are considered internal tribal matters?<BR/><BR/>By the way, among the things our family members pointed out to the tribal council that those Enrollment Committee members who ended up voting us out of the tribe of doing was not processing applications of enrolled members of certain families.<BR/><BR/>Some of our family members likely ended up in the moratorium because their applications were not processed when they were submitted. <BR/><BR/>So in effect those Enrollment Committee members on their own accord started the disenrollment process while we were still legally enrolled members and no challenges had even been presented to our tribal membership.<BR/><BR/>Their attitude was that they were dead set against enrolling people from "those families." <BR/><BR/>Total bias as their minds were already made up before our tribal membership credentials had even been challenged.<BR/><BR/>Again, a violation of Article V of the Pechanga Band's constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-15535526185542035152008-12-23T22:51:00.000-05:002008-12-23T22:51:00.000-05:00Two pivota terms apply to this discussion, jurisdi...Two pivota terms apply to this discussion, jurisdiction and recognition. I'll come back to them.<BR/>The law is always at the behest of the person or people in power. Those not in power are subject to it. When the law no longer serves the person or people in power they change it to serve them. I recall an old poli.-sci. lesson the states that the majority agrees to be governed and the minority is protected by it, hence, fair laws for everyone. <BR/>Tribal laws have always been considered by the federal government as under tribal jurisdiction. If the tribe isn't violating federal laws then generally there is no federal recourse. I think you have good ground to challenge in a tribal council or court, but those in power refuse to adhere to the principle of fair laws protecting the less powerful. You may still have the legal standing as a tribal member under tribal law, but how you assert that standing would take some strategy.<BR/>Now to my favorite word, recognition. The BIA could determine not to recognize any dis-enrollments by any tribe if it chose to. It could also choose to continue to recognize dis-enrolled tribal members as legitimate tribal members and continue government to government relations with them. As I mentioned in the earlier post, the federal government reserves the right to recognize whom they wish, regardless of what occurs as an internal tribal action. I would still want to ask the BIA if they act on the premise that a tribe has the sole authority to terminate an Indians federal recognition. Do they recognize tribes only or do they recognize the tribal citizens as well.<BR/>If they recognize tribal citizens and those citizens dis-enrolled than the BIA, (feds) need to continue those relationships and sanction those tribal governments that stand in the way of those relationships. If the dis-enroolees can get the BIA to take a postion on this I think they would have gained another answer to your question, Who can make them abide by their own laws?<BR/>AllenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-63121843368375630522008-12-23T13:21:00.000-05:002008-12-23T13:21:00.000-05:00Thank you Mr. Lee, number one for caring about wha...Thank you Mr. Lee, number one for caring about what happened to us, and number two for continuing to bring up relevant legal points.<BR/><BR/>In the case of our tribe Pechanga, they violated their own constitution, which states under Article V, "It shall be the duty of all elected officers of the Band to uphold the individual rights of each member without malice or prejudice." <BR/><BR/>By allowing Enrollment Committee members and tribal councilman whoose families had been accused of wrongdoing by our family members to vote on our disenrollment cases and who also had been challeged themselves of not being legitimate tribal members by our family members our rights under Article V of the Band's constitution were violated.<BR/><BR/>By the way, both of our family members' actions were lawful under tribal law.<BR/><BR/>My question is, isn't it true that since tribes have to have their constitutions okayed by the BIA and when changes are made to those said constitutions, shouldn't the BIA also be involved when those same tribes violate their own constitutions?<BR/><BR/>Maybe we have something there but in practice, as I have been closing a lot of my posts, BUT IF NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES SUCH AS PECHANGA DON'T EVEN FOLLOW THEIR OWN LAWS, WHO CAN MAKE THEM DO SO BECAUSE OF SOVEREIGNTY?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-21540631760577351232008-12-23T03:35:00.000-05:002008-12-23T03:35:00.000-05:00The question as I see it is; Can the tribes absolv...The question as I see it is; Can the tribes absolve the federal government of it's legal agreements with tribal members by dis-enrolling them? I think the answer is, No!<BR/>Though the tribes as seperate sovereigns may absolve themselves of any legal relationship with a member by dis-enrolling them, the tribes can not absolve any legal relationship a tribal member may have with the federal government on behalf of the federal government. This would include who the federal government agrees to recognize as citizens of a tribe.<BR/>If it were accurate that the Federal government leaves membership solely up to the tribes , then the following prosecutions covered at this link,<BR/>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-20-tribe-fraud_N.htm<BR/>would not have happened.<BR/>I will paraphrase an important statement from this link which says that the BIA denied recognition for this fake tribe because it had no historical characteristics, etc. It also said that even if they did recognize the tribe, tribal granted membership to an illegal alien would not confer U.S citizenship to the member. This is a point demonstrating that how the U.S. recognizes a tribal citizen can be independent of how a tribe recognizes a tribal citizenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-35505773215664980512008-12-21T11:09:00.000-05:002008-12-21T11:09:00.000-05:00Any members of our family, the Hunters of Pechanga...Any members of our family, the Hunters of Pechanga, who have gone through probate for a share of our ancestor Paulina Hunter's land allotment received an official Dept of Interior document that says the following:<BR/><BR/>NOTICE IS GIVEN "That on "Specific Date" a decision was entered in the estate of "Deceased Person's Name," a deceased Luiseno Mission (Pechanga Band) Indian, a copy of which is attached hereto." <BR/><BR/>EVEN OUR FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH PROBATE AFTER MARCH 16, 2006, THE DAY WE WERE DISENROLLED FROM OUR TRIBE, STILL HAVE THEIR DECEASED LOVED ONES LISTED AS BEING OF THE PECHHANGA BAND.<BR/><BR/>Clearly the BIA still considers us Pechanga even if our tribe now does not. <BR/><BR/>What we can do with this information, I don't know, but what I have stated is fact that is officially docmented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-70603310659047707192008-12-20T00:47:00.000-05:002008-12-20T00:47:00.000-05:00“IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRI...“IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<BR/>FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<BR/>MARILYN VANN, RONALD MOON, )<BR/>DONALD MOON, CHARLENE WHITE )<BR/>RALPH THREAT, FAITH RUSSELL, )<BR/>ANGELA SANDERS, SAMUEL E. FORD, )<BR/>and THE FREEDMEN BAND OF THE )<BR/>CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA )<BR/>)<BR/>Plaintiffs )<BR/>)<BR/>v. ) Case No.: 1:03cv01711 (HHK)<BR/>) Judge: Henry H. Kennedy<BR/>DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the ) Docket Type: Civil Rights<BR/>United States Department of the Interior, ) (non-employment)<BR/>)<BR/>UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )<BR/>THE INTERIOR, )<BR/>)<BR/>CHADWICK SMITH, Individually and in )<BR/>His Official Capacity, and )<BR/>)<BR/>Defendants. )<BR/>PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT<BR/>….The BIA’s determination to recognize the results of a Cherokee<BR/>Election in which Cherokee Freedmen citizens had been illegally prevented from exercising their right to vote is a breach of the BIA’s fiduciary duty….”<BR/>http://www.jalagi.org/p1.pdf<BR/>I post this because I want to discuss the point of the BIA’s “fiduciary responsibility to the dis-enrollees separate from their acknowledgment of tribal sovereignty. I’m not quite convinced that they need new acts from Congress to convey to the tribes that it is to the U.S.’s best interest to continue to recognize dis-enrollees as citizens/members of specific tribes. Tribes removing legal tribal status from individual members has far reaching consequences on how the U.S. will approach, legal, educational, medical, land rights, etc. if that person is still deemed to possess those native rights under U.S. law.<BR/>BIA officials who are also citizens/members of tribal sovereign nations must not allow a conflict of interest between tribal sovereignty and their fiduciary duty as federal officers. While respecting tribal sovereignty, BIA officers still have the responsibility to represent U.S. interest in the government to government relationship with tribes, even without a constitutional clause or a treaty.<BR/>AllenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-40038566548972672462008-12-19T12:14:00.000-05:002008-12-19T12:14:00.000-05:00Add on to my last post:One of those family's direc...Add on to my last post:<BR/><BR/>One of those family's direct ancestor appears as a young child on the Pechanga reservation census records after 1900 even though she was born before 1900 and the woman they claim as their direct ancestor's mother is listed in the Pechanga census records before 1900 as being married to a different man then their direct ancestor's father at the time of their direct ancestor's birth.<BR/><BR/>MY POINT IS, IF IT WASN'T CLEAR, WHY WASN'T THIS FAMILY'S DIRECT ANCESTOR LISTED WITH THE WOMAN WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HER MOTHER IN THE CENSUS RECORDS THE YEAR OF HER BIRTH?<BR/><BR/>That family's direct ancestor is not on those records so are they Pechanga?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-50079414879447898862008-12-19T11:41:00.000-05:002008-12-19T11:41:00.000-05:00Ironcially the Hunter family of Pechanga was likel...Ironcially the Hunter family of Pechanga was likely there before some of the people who voted them out of the tribe.<BR/><BR/>It can be verfied that the Hunters were not only on the original reservation but with the people before the reservation was created.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand the famlies who's members were on the Enrollment Committee who were the deciding votes who voted the Hunters out of the tribe don't appear to have been at Pechanga during the late 1800's, the time the reservation was created.<BR/><BR/>The requirment is to be a descendant from an original Pechanga person and it is from the late 1800's, not the 1900's. which the Enrollment Committee claimed the Hunters were not.<BR/><BR/>One of those family's direct ancestor appears as a young child on the Pechanga reservation census records after 1900 even though she was born before 1900 and the woman they claim as their direct ancestor's mother is listed in the Pechanga census records before 1900 as being married to a different man then their direct ancestor's father at the time of their direct ancestor's birth.<BR/><BR/>So are they blood of the tribe?<BR/><BR/>Also, another Enrollment Committee member who was one of the deciding votes in kicking the Hunters out of the tribe has her direct ancestor on the census records at Pechanga after 1900 but listed as living on the Soboba reservation in the late 1800s, not at Pechanga.<BR/><BR/>So are they Pechanga or are they Soboba?<BR/><BR/>The Hunters opposition had as their main argument that only Oral Tradition can prove membership, that paperwork cannot do so.<BR/><BR/>These people may be descedants of local Indians but are they Pechanga and is that why they insist on Oral Tradition and not paperwork?<BR/><BR/>We would have had no problem with those other people staying in the tribe if they have had a presence with the people since the early 1900's and we could have stayed one tribe as Pala has.<BR/><BR/>We would have never came after them for disenrollment if they hadn't come after us first.<BR/><BR/>By the way, as I have mentioned in other posts, some of my family members counter filed disenrollment challenges to the families that accused us of not being Pechanga and these were the deciding votes that kicked us out of the tribe.<BR/><BR/>Thess families were cleared with less than a legal quorum on the Enrollment Committee and then were allowed to vote on my family's case, a violation of the equal protection clause in the Pechanga constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-38323346125977765522008-12-18T23:36:00.000-05:002008-12-18T23:36:00.000-05:00To quote one of the enrollment commettee members s...To quote one of the enrollment commettee members speaking to a Hunter member... "it dosn't matter what kind of evidence you provide, your still going to be disenrolled".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-110151857450437102008-12-18T02:16:00.000-05:002008-12-18T02:16:00.000-05:00It just does not matter how muchprove of ancestry ...It just does not matter how much<BR/>prove of ancestry you have, these corrupt tribal members do not care, to them this is only a political game.<BR/>Money and political power is what's important to them and<BR/>human decency is not in their DNA.<BR/><BR/>"Twisted Sister Avila" should be proud to join other tribal criminals like her, who used the same lying scheming tactics to oust longstanding families from their tribes.<BR/><BR/>BOYCOT THESE CASINOS <BR/>DO NOT GIVE THEM A PENNY <BR/>THEY DO NOT DESERVE YOUR BUSINESS.Creeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09974839755652435072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-65327746160018601742008-12-17T19:53:00.000-05:002008-12-17T19:53:00.000-05:00Instead of trying to find technicalities or making...Instead of trying to find technicalities or making them up to get rid of people, tribes should find a way to live together.<BR/><BR/>I think we should take as an example the Pala Band of Mission Indians in North San Diego county, Ca.<BR/><BR/>In a glass case near one of the main entrances to their casino is a brief history of the Pala tribe.<BR/><BR/>It states that Pala was originally populated by the Luiseno people but in 1903 another group of local Indians, the Cupeno, were moved off of their land near Warner Springs to the Pala reservation.<BR/><BR/>The Pala tribe considers after over 100 years both groups to be part of the tribe and the people who were there first aren't all of a sudden claiming that the second group should be disenrolled.<BR/><BR/>I think Pala is an example other tribes should follow.<BR/><BR/>The Robinson Chairwoman saying that the timing right before elections wasn't intentional.<BR/><BR/>What does she think everyone is naive and that we should just believe her?<BR/><BR/>We have seen this sort of twisted reasoning happen time and time again in tribes up and down the state and in other states as well.<BR/><BR/>What makes me think that the so called evidence against the disenrolled wouldn't hold water in a real court of law?<BR/><BR/>Well because it has happened in so many other places already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com