tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post7785817448282615392..comments2024-03-28T06:01:57.947-04:00Comments on <center>Original Pechanga Blog</center>: AIRRO's John Gomez Jr. Responds to Banishment by The Corrupt Tribal Council Of PechangaOPechangahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10687743661360604165noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-25873823746502788872010-09-04T20:14:34.451-04:002010-09-04T20:14:34.451-04:00this is not the first time pechanga has been rude ...this is not the first time pechanga has been rude and turned their back (that is indian for i dont't give shit who you are or represent) a few years ago they did the same thing to several tribes in a meeting that they (pechanga had called) no one calls them out!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-33862867912104801522010-05-28T17:28:15.737-04:002010-05-28T17:28:15.737-04:00"I heard that a small group of people were re..."I heard that a small group of people were recently enrolled. These were only people who had their applications in prior to the deadline."<br /><br />That would be nice if it was true but the last I heard the tribe decided not to process applications of some people who had beaten the deadline, nine, I believe.<br /><br />I wonder if the tribe will pay them for the lost money they missed over the years if they have been recently enrolled?'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-82349531648308783002010-05-28T13:51:58.843-04:002010-05-28T13:51:58.843-04:00I heard that a small group of people were recently...I heard that a small group of people were recently enrolled. These were only people who had their applications in prior to the deadline.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-76635741823685973962010-05-28T12:27:05.738-04:002010-05-28T12:27:05.738-04:00"The reason I asked my question related to th..."The reason I asked my question related to the Liska situation is because I know there are a few different types of people that are in the moratorium, those who have a parent or immediate family member that is in the tribe, those that can trace back to a Temecula Indian but who's line is not enrolled, and those who were disenrolled but have reapplied for membership."<br /><br />I don't know of any disenrolled people who have reapplied for membership but that being said, there is a fourth type of situation of someone being stuck in the moratorium, which explains why some immediate family members are not enrolled when, for example, a full blooded sibling is enrolled.<br /><br />Reportedly the enrollment committee did not enroll a proven sibling with the same claim of membership of their brother or sister who had submitted his or her application at the same time.<br /><br />It was one of the things that members of the enrollment committee who were elected in 2002, John Gomez Jr included, pointed out to the tribal council showing the enrollment committee showed malice against certain individuals or families and/or were negligent in their duties.<br /><br />Also, no one has addressed the point I brought up that some moratorium people had their applications in before the deadline for the moratorium so they abided by the terms of even this bogus law but are still being denied membership.'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-9200372787436433172010-05-28T10:40:03.727-04:002010-05-28T10:40:03.727-04:00The reason I asked my question related to the Lisk...The reason I asked my question related to the Liska situation is because I know there are a few different types of people that are in the moratorium, those who have a parent or immediate family member that is in the tribe, those that can trace back to a Temecula Indian but who's line is not enrolled, and those who were disenrolled but have reapplied for membership. So I was simply trying to get an understanding of what legal claim each type of person might have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-47697288312275652832010-05-28T01:30:09.301-04:002010-05-28T01:30:09.301-04:00I won't comment on the Liska case directly sin...I won't comment on the Liska case directly since it is current. I am curious to see how it will turn out.<br />Each sovereign has a mutual contract with it's citizen/members as to how they may pass on the legal right of citizenship/ membership to their descendants.<br />In the U.S. the parents don't have to be citizens, hence there is no contract between the parent and the sovereign,if the child is born on American soil. Soil rights or descendancy rights, sovereigns can use one or the other or both combined or something not mentioned. Contrast the U.S. soil rights with the Santa Clara Pueblo descendancy restriction for children of women who marry outside the tribe, and you can see a divergance of citizenship/membership practices.<br />While I agree that many of the moratorium people have excellent grounds and are highly qualified to be Pechanga members, I believe a legal right of descendancy must be clearly stated by the sovereign.<br />That's not to say that those in the moratorium don't possess rights of self-determination and land rights, but the right of political affiliation for those not previously granted citizenship/membership, I believe is left largely to the sovereign.<br />The problem I see in this phase of recovery from the termination era is that so many tribes have no idea how to recover in a just way for all that have been impacted by termination. Add to that the cultural genocide impact of Casinos( as bad if not worse then Boarding schools) and all sorts of arbitrary membership things have occured.<br />I look at the dis-enrolled and tribes as any other sovereign on earth. The pre-existing rights of recognized citizen/members are inherent, and can not be removed by the sovereign with-out just cause. We can change the rules about what is known as " Anchor babies" but once the child of non-citizen parents is given U.S. citizenship, we can not wait until that person is of voting age and enforce the rules retro-actively removing that persons citizenship. That I believe is a Human Rights violation and should be challenged by any sovereign that does it, including indigenous sovereigns.Allen L. Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-3771018976205371862010-05-27T13:01:21.201-04:002010-05-27T13:01:21.201-04:00Mr. Lee you do have some very valid points though ...Mr. Lee you do have some very valid points though regarding Pechanga and Temecula though.'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-4144233282417272902010-05-27T12:48:13.626-04:002010-05-27T12:48:13.626-04:00Allen Lee said,
"The Pechanga Band, Temecul...Allen Lee said, <br /><br />"The Pechanga Band, Temecula Indian<br />definitions that others have brought up smacks a similar tone to the UKB, CNO dispute among Cherokees. This issue involves a "successor in interest" dispute from what was once a joined tribe of people, now separated."<br /><br />But the Tosabols are only separated by the bogus moratorium law, which is unconstitutional but even if it wasn't, it has not been fairly enforced. <br /><br />Their ancestor(s) were Temecula Indians residing on the Pechanga reservation during the historical period of the creation of the reservation so they meet the requirments for tribal membership.<br /><br />They are original Temecula (Pechanga) Indians, period!<br /><br />Also, they have committed no offense to be banished for yet they have been banished from the land anyway, why?'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-45084623977983389792010-05-27T09:42:59.182-04:002010-05-27T09:42:59.182-04:00Allen,
How differently do you view a disenrolled p...Allen,<br />How differently do you view a disenrolled person versus a moratorium person in a situation like Joe Liska? If the tribe recognizes his father as a member and membership requirements do not include having to be a minimal percentage, how could the tribe argue against his rights?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-43971187301706999962010-05-27T01:55:47.731-04:002010-05-27T01:55:47.731-04:00Anonymous
The Pechanga Band, Temecula Indian
defin...Anonymous<br />The Pechanga Band, Temecula Indian<br />definitions that others have brought up smacks a similar tone to the UKB, CNO dispute among Cherokees. This issue involves a "successor in interest" dispute from what was once a joined tribe of people, now separated. <br />That fact that the "Pechanga Band' may choose not to recognize you as one of their particular Band does not mean that you don't have a federal "successor in interest" right to be recognized as sovereign Temecula Indians. What is important in this discussion in the Cherokee forum is the shared interest in land and jurisdiction.<br />The Pechanga band of Temecula Indians may find that they have to share the same land with other rightfully recognized Temecula Indians who have "succesor in interest" rights from an earlier recognized tribe or people? <br />I think J. Gomez's tribal land concern may be valid.<br />The sovereign does not exist in a vacuum. All supporting entities to the sovereign, once made aware of the violations, should act accordingly, or be held equally accountable for the violations.Allen l. Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-84770450891452026752010-05-26T23:40:53.423-04:002010-05-26T23:40:53.423-04:00Again we go to the United States Government to det...Again we go to the United States Government to determine how and why the tribe has violated their own constituion and misused and abused using sovereignty as a sword to determine the tribal membership steal lands ,from true descendents Mr allen if in fact what you say is true if the tosobols were not members and on moritorium What other reason did PECHANGA Tribal council have to banish them except to take the lands they have,what did they have to Fear,nothing but we know that they were Banished what is in the lineal descendency that pechanga is afraid of I think we already know That answer. Pechangas Federal recognition must END . PolysqwalisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-45505408910325382922010-05-26T19:55:31.737-04:002010-05-26T19:55:31.737-04:00Allen Lee said,
"The rights of the moratoriu...Allen Lee said,<br /><br />"The rights of the moratorium people, though it is clear some have grounds, are subject to the right to determine membership by the tribe"<br /><br />At least three problems come up regarding the moratorium law at Pechanga.<br /><br />1. People who had their applications in before the deadline are still being denied membership.<br /><br />2. Adults, despite the moratorium being in place, were enrolled reportedly before the 2000 tribal elections and also within the last several years<br /><br />3. The Band's constitution and bylaws under Article VIII says that the General Membership is the final authority in all matters of government and business of the Band unless stipulated otherwise in the bylaws.<br /><br />So since the constitution and bylaws says under Article II that open enrollment is the first month of each year, the moratorium law itself is null and void.<br /><br />So because of its unconstitutioality and its arbitrary enforcement this bogus law should be thrown out and all of the people eligible for membership who are stuck in the moratorium should be approved for membership.<br /><br />But there again is the problem if a tribe decides not to follow its own constitution and/or does not fairly implement those laws, who, because of sovereignty can make them do so?'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-36236515716321078552010-05-26T16:31:37.364-04:002010-05-26T16:31:37.364-04:00To anonymous,
Thanks again for the discussion.
I p...To anonymous,<br />Thanks again for the discussion.<br />I posted this earlier onthis thread:<br />"...The scope of "his own country" is broader than the concept "country of his nationality". It is not limited to nationality in a formal sense, that is, nationality acquired at birth or by conferral; it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien...."<br />http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/hrc-gen-cmt-rtr.htm<br /> I bring this back because while I believe some moraturium persons have "grounds' to assert political affiliation with the tribe, I do make a distinction between the "pre-existing rights" of the dis-enrolled and the "grounds" for political affiliation of moratorium persons.<br />Those who have pre-existing rights can not have those rights removed by any sovereign without just cause. Said rights are the sole possession of individual. Doing so is a violation by the sovereign. I can assure you that retro-active qualification of an ancestor is not just cause in any forum of rights that I have seen or know of.<br />Having grounds does not meet the same criteria of deprivation as a removal of existing rights to me.<br />There are no doubt thousands of descendants of tribal freedmen whose names appear on the Freedmen portion of the Dawes Rolls, however, many of those descendants can establish no current political affiliation with the Cherokee Nation and though can show grounds based on the 1866 Treaty, the tribe has a right in my mind to scrutinize their enrollment based on examining things other than their grounds of descendancy.<br />The absolute reverse is applicable for already recognized members. There is a proven and established political affiliation with a recognized member and under no circumstances is it justified to re-visit a persons legal by-blood rights through descendancy unless the person knowingly lied about a blood tie to an ancestor.<br />The rights of the dis-enrolled Pechanga are cut, dried, and clear for me, hence my guard shack answer. The rights of the moratorium people, though it is clear some have grounds, are subject to the right to determine membership by the tribeAllen L. Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-52204609382581472512010-05-26T15:05:14.343-04:002010-05-26T15:05:14.343-04:00My key point is that while people want to be objec...My key point is that while people want to be objective and believe that the other side of our issues has credibility, the mere fact that John Gomez Jr. had already been banished before he even said the so called offensive comment that was used as the reason for his banishment speaks volumes.<br /><br />And that is how they do everything, they stack the deck to fit their agenda.<br /><br />Regarding our disenrollment, So Vince Ibanez was a more credible source than Antonio Ashman who the tribe calls a vaunted (much praised) elder on the tribe's official Web site, Pechanga.com? <br /><br />In the past I we had hestitated to state who in the tribe supported us so they wouldn't become targets themselves but in reality, even though our disenrollment proceedings were supposed to be confidential, I am sure the CPP already knows who supported us and our supporters did give notarized testimony that could be used in a court of law.'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-61828730518704715972010-05-26T14:51:23.952-04:002010-05-26T14:51:23.952-04:00I know this thread is about the banishment of John...I know this thread is about the banishment of John Gomez Jr but briefly I would like to touch on the disenrollments here as far as the evidence against the Hunters in particular.<br /><br />The whole case rested on basically what the resident critic who posts here from time to times says and we answered those questions with the documents we turned and with some clarification from the tribe's own hired expert Dr. Johnson.<br /><br />In the Record of Decision it lists current tribal members who submitted statements in support of our membership and others, all from the CPP faction, who did not support us and it referrences testimony from elders from the historical period of the reservation during Paulina Hunter's probate for her land allotment.<br /><br />I think the key point is the ROD's listing of our submission of elder Antonio Ashman's testimony prior to the first written enrollment of 1978, which by the way met one of the requirments for proving tribal membership listed in the supplement page that came with the enrollment application of having a known tribal member vouch for an applicant.<br /><br />The ROD merely mentions that Mr. Ashman's testimony was regarding recognition of the Hunters not that he supported us by saying that he remembered Paulina as a member of the Band.<br /><br />Because if the ROD had mentioned that Ashman acknowledged us a being legitimate tribal members, then it would have thrown out their forgone conclusion of kicking us out of the tribe.<br /><br />If anything would have "broken the camel's back" in our favor one would think that should have been the end of it.<br /><br />The ROD also states that the enrollment committee could reject any testimony that disagreed with their conclusions based on whether the source lacked authenticity or if there were other more credible sources available.<br /><br />So what was more authentic or credible; testimony from current CPP faction elders against us, some of which wasn't notarized, such as Raymond Basquez Sr, Vincent (I was in prison for child molestation) Ibanez, Gloria Wright, Yoli McCarter and about ten other CPP faction members who signed a statement against us or notarized testimony in our support from vaunted elder Antonio Ashman, Dolores Tortuga, Jose David Rodriguez, all from the historical period of the founding of the reservation, as well as current elders not from the CPP faction such as Paul and Benjamin Vasquez, Phillip Ibanez, Lucille Garbani, and Joe (Eddie) Moreno?<br /><br />In addition we had notarized testimony from Norman Pico Sr and Marie Russell, also not from the CPP faction in our support that was turned in during our appeal.<br /><br />I will tie this in with Mr. Gomez's circumstance in my next post.'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-46053296905404203852010-05-26T13:34:50.665-04:002010-05-26T13:34:50.665-04:00"The reason people believe different things i..."The reason people believe different things is because a lot of people on the side of the disenrolled and moratorium post ridiculous things."<br /><br />A lot of people do this?<br /><br />I would say that the majority of people who are disenrolled and caught in the moratorium don't do this and while some do, we can't lump everyone together as doing this.<br /><br />Also, since this is a public forum we are bound to get some people who are not playing fair on both sides of the issues but the alternative would be for the moderator to censur those offensive posts but I don't think most of of us would be in favor of that. <br /><br />But some rouge comments don't take any credibilty away from this site as they are just the statements of a few and not the majority.<br /><br />Personally, I think it is funny that we refer to Ed Burbee as Mr. Potato Head as he looks like a potato with skinny arms and legs and Mark Macarro (if all we had was a corn field, which he said) as Corny.<br /><br />People could say a lot worse about them for what they have done.<br /><br />To the person who mentioned the Records of Decisions, they are at about 25 to 30 pages long so it would be hard to post them here.<br /><br />But I do post things sometimes that I am typing directly from some of these documents or directly from the Band's constitution and bylaws.<br /><br />But maybe, time permitting, I can get to a scanner, and post some of the excerpts I quote from so people can see the sources.'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-26409404353516955852010-05-26T11:20:29.516-04:002010-05-26T11:20:29.516-04:00To aamokat and Allen,
Thanks for all the informati...To aamokat and Allen,<br />Thanks for all the information I'm just trying to get an understanding of the legal side of things. I'm not in the tribe, I’m in the moratorium, and I can trace my line back to Manuela Miranda. I tend to try to think of things from the side of how the tribe would argue. I do this to try to determine if their argument has any basis.<br /><br />aamokat you asked "P.S. why do some of you who read this blog believe anything the troublemakers who come here to disrupt things have to say?" The reason people believe different things is because a lot of people on the side of the disenrolled and moratorium post ridiculous things. For example, I’m trying to have a discussion about the legal issues at play and others post irrelevant name calling comments. These people certainly have the right to do so but it takes away from the real issues. Other people post things like the “Feds are closing the casino”; I assume they do this to try to create panic, but why post things you know are now true, it just hits the credibility of the site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-37209677373849924292010-05-26T11:17:39.143-04:002010-05-26T11:17:39.143-04:00I believe people would understand better if they c...I believe people would understand better if they could actually see the record of decision in the disenrollments of these two families. I believe that people are still telling lies to others to cover up exactly what happened. I know when I talk to current tribal people they are shocked at the record of decision, or they are good actors. Either way, it would be good to actually read the record of decision on these matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-55350082786839149492010-05-26T05:38:34.227-04:002010-05-26T05:38:34.227-04:00Corny is Mark Macarro as he said, even if all we h...Corny is Mark Macarro as he said, even if all we had was a cornfield the disenrollments would have occured.'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-31067804711381820602010-05-25T21:45:07.309-04:002010-05-25T21:45:07.309-04:00I know, I know, I created one of the names. Can yo...I know, I know, I created one of the names. Can you guess.White Buffalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03418439711300071894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-65285369108809594912010-05-25T19:31:48.280-04:002010-05-25T19:31:48.280-04:00Quiz question of the day.
Who are Mr. Potato Head...Quiz question of the day.<br /><br />Who are Mr. Potato Head, Corny, and General Custer?<br /><br />I will answer shortly for those who don't know or can't guess.Sheriff Bartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-5458664875350889092010-05-25T19:26:58.937-04:002010-05-25T19:26:58.937-04:00The thing is Pablo Apish was called Headman of the...The thing is Pablo Apish was called Headman of the Temecula Indians by the tribe's enrollment committee in the Records of Decisions against both the Manuela Miranda family and the Hunters and all official sides agree that Pablo was of the Temecula tribe.<br /><br />It is only the trouble makers who come here that claim Pablo was not Temecula and the fact that Mr. Gomez is a descendant of Pablo had no bearing on his family's disenrollment.<br /><br />So it is not just Mr. Gomez saying Pablo was Temecula but it is an historical fact.<br /><br />M. Miranda, Pablo's granddaughter, was forced to move in with an older relative when as a five year old child her mother died and that was the reasoning behind her descendants' disenrollment.<br /><br />Ironically, her relative, Candarlaria Nesecat Flores, also wasn't living at Pechanga during the historical period of the late 1800's.<br /><br />However, her descendants were cleared from disernollment with vitually the same family history.<br /><br />So either both family lines should be in the tribe or both should be out of the tribe.<br /><br />Can we say malice and predjudice against the M. Miranda descendants, a violation of the equal protection clause of the Band's constitution and bylaws under Article V?<br /><br />Also, as stated here many times, there are many descendants of Pablo Apish who are still official members of the Band including, among others, the Picos, the Lukers, and the Magees.<br /><br />So yes Mr. Gomez does have a hereditary claim to Temecula Indian lands and, like I said, it is the historical revisionists (liars) who claim he doesn't because of his linage from Pablo Apish.<br /><br />The reason I bring up the fact that the Hunters, M. Mirandas, and the Tosabols as well have historical ties as Temecula Indians is because of, what I believe, are plans to try to eventually exclude everyone who is not a tribal member from all access and benefits of the lands set aside for the Indians of Temecula.<br /><br />P.S. why do some of you who read this blog believe anything the troublemakers who come here to disrupt things have to say?'aamokatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-84947858102522193972010-05-25T18:52:54.695-04:002010-05-25T18:52:54.695-04:00Mr. Potato Head: "if you want to keep your ph...Mr. Potato Head: "if you want to keep your phony baloney jobs gentleman you had better come up with an excuse to ban John Gomez from the Rez."<br /><br />I love that quoteWhite Buffalohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03418439711300071894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-27363461705934420912010-05-25T16:14:37.390-04:002010-05-25T16:14:37.390-04:00First anonymous,
Let me thank you for coming to t...First anonymous,<br /> Let me thank you for coming to the board and engaging in frank discussions as I have said before, no solution will be found if we don't talk.<br />Pablo Apis has a similar political history to a Cherokee ancestor named Nancy Ward. Both appeased American interests and there are some Native people today who hold animosity towards ancestors who did such things. Combined with westernized political differences today of certain descendants and I see a suspicious cause for some of dis-enrollments.<br />Recently, I came across a similar case involving Canadian citizens who thought their religion based ancestors were in Canada at the time a law was passed gaurantee-ing them descendancy rights to citizenship. They found out their ancestors were actually religious refugees in Mexico and the line gradually made it to Canada. The argument that these persons had no descendancy rights to citizenship came up.<br /> The point in my mind which makes it greater than the status of any ancestor is the pre-existing legal status of the living descendant.<br />Once Canada, as the state, recognized these people as citizens of Canada, they would have to bear a greater burden than simply ancestry to remove the rights of citizenship already recognized.<br />Every indigenous tribe, as a separate sovereign, should be expected to adhere to the basic principles of Human Rights. Any descendant of Pablo Apis who possessed full membership/citizenship in the tribe<br />should retain those rights based on their political affiliation with the tribe, not the political affiliation or genetic profile of the ancestor.<br />Prove to me that the particular Pablo Apis descendant has had no political affiliation or recognition as a tribal member, and I will agree with your assertion of tribal rights. If we are talking about a dis-enrolled tribal member who was recognized as a legal tribal member since childhood, then I find it secondary to concern oneself with the political or genetic status of Pablo Apis.Allen L. Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2887382220113280558.post-56667039713720885772010-05-25T14:37:20.849-04:002010-05-25T14:37:20.849-04:00First, I don't think you can include the Hunte...First, I don't think you can include the Hunter line in our current discussion. Pauline Hunter was given an allotment so personally that was the governments acknowledgement that she was a Temecula Indian. In terms of John Gomez's statement that he has land interest simply because he believes Pablo Apis was a Temecula Indian; I agree with this in principal. The issue now becomes if the tribe says Pablo Apis was not part of the tribe. If the federal government allows the tribe to determine its members, doesn’t that by definition mean they could say we researched the tribe and determined that Pablo Apis was not part of the tribe? For example, the basquez/masiel family really have no tie to Pechanga, so if they were disenrolled could they say that they are Temecula Indians and therefore should be allowed on the reservation? Who should determine this, the tribe or the federal government?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com