REMEMBER WHEN? THANK you Congressman Thompson, for standing UP for what is RIGHT.
It seems our contingent in Washington D.C. as well as Rep. Darrell Issa have gotten the word out. We need a hearing on the enforcement of ICRA.
The Honorable Mike Thompson has requested Rep. Nick Rahall, who is Chairman of the Committee on House Resources, to hold and oversight hearing on the enforcement of the INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
Here is a copy of that letter, and THANK YOU, Rep. Thompson, for standing up for your constituents and for ALL who have been harmed by their tribes.
originally published September 14, 2010.
Showing posts with label Darrell Issa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darrell Issa. Show all posts
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Mark Macarro: LIAR! Pechanga's Golf Course on Land Macarro Told Congress Was Culturally Significant.
One of the meeting we had in Washington DC led to a discussion of the fact that land that Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro told Congress was culturally significant and need to be protected was now...A GOLF COURSE. We've written about it before, but wanted to get it out front again, since Interior and The Department of Justice has been checking the site so frequently.
It's important because Pechanga is currently trying to steal water rights from allottees of the reservation and are lying ...again... to Congress. We'd like to get a previous lie out front.
Once the Great Oak Ranch property is accepted into trust by the United States, it will become part of the Pechanga Reservation. TheTribe will exercise powers of self-government, including civil regulatory jurisdiction, to protect the unique archaeological,biological and cultural resources, as well as the historic and sacred sites on the Great Oak Ranch.
It's important because Pechanga is currently trying to steal water rights from allottees of the reservation and are lying ...again... to Congress. We'd like to get a previous lie out front.
Below is a story about the Journey, a golf course built by the Pechanga Band on lands previously determined to be culturally significant. The golf course was cut through the Great Oak Ranch and adjacent property referenced in Chairman Macarro’s testimony to the House Resources Committee from April 17, 2002 regarding the Great Oak Ranch and the need to protect the resources they are on:
Here is a preview of some of the most relevant testimony regarding the Great Oak Ranch and the invaluable resources that Tribe said it needed assistance in protecting from development.
“We believe the resources found on the Great Oak Ranch should be
preserved and remain within the Ranch. The sole purpose of the
acquisition is the preservation and the protection of Luiseno people’s
natural and cultural resources. The Pechanga Band is committed to
protecting and preserving the invaluable and irreplaceable cultural
resources of the Pechanga and Luiseno people. The cultural resources
located within the Great Oak Ranch provide the Pechanga Band with the
unique opportunity to protect and preserve such resources on property
owned by the Tribe itself.
Once the Great Oak Ranch property is accepted into trust by the United States, it will become part of the Pechanga Reservation. TheTribe will exercise powers of self-government, including civil regulatory jurisdiction, to protect the unique archaeological,biological and cultural resources, as well as the historic and sacred sites on the Great Oak Ranch.
Mr. Hayworth: “Chairman Macarro, does the Pechanga Tribe have any plans for development of any kind on the Great Oak Ranch property?”
Mr. Macarro: “No, we don’t. As stated in our application to Interior/BIA, we stated or have designated there is no change of use in the property, and the intended use and purpose is to preserve and protect the resources that are there. The cultural resources in particular are also very significant. Along the base of all the foothills there are
significant old village sites, dark midden soil area, cremation areas and associated sacred sites.”
significant old village sites, dark midden soil area, cremation areas and associated sacred sites.”
Mr. Hayworth: “… Just one follow-up, and for purposes of the record, Mr.Chairman, does the tribe plan to use the Great Oak Ranch for gaming purposes or any purposes other than what you have just outlined?”
Mr. Macarro. “No, the tribe does not.”
Needless to say, the development of the golf course and other projects on land that was supposed to be free from impacts in no way reflects the “no change in use” testified to by Mr. Macarro. While the transfer of the Ranch property protected it from the proposed power line project, the transfer did not protect the Ranch or its resources from tribal development projects, including the golf course.
In response, Pechanga's General Counsel John Macarro, wrote, "Once the land is placed in trust, a tribe has complete zoning and planning authority over it and can change land uses just as a county or city can change or update its general plan or zoning designations." Meaning: Just because we said we wanted to maintain cultural sites and don't propose development if you just give us the land free, doesn't mean we can't put a golf course there.
Needless to say, the development of the golf course and other projects on land that was supposed to be free from impacts in no way reflects the “no change in use” testified to by Mr. Macarro. While the transfer of the Ranch property protected it from the proposed power line project, the transfer did not protect the Ranch or its resources from tribal development projects, including the golf course.
“The transfer of the Great Oak Ranch and eventual development of the property is tragic,” stated John Gomez, Jr.* “If the golf course project, or any other development, had been proposed on private property as culturally rich and significant as this, you better believe that tribal officials would have taken every action, whether it be lawsuits or acts of Congress, to stop it. Unfortunately, the duty to protect and preserve does not apply to tribal projects that may add to the bottom line.”
In addition to the impacts development has had on the cultural and archaeological resources on the Great Oak Ranch and the surrounding area, it appears that the tribal officials’ double-talk was reason enough for the City of Temecula and others to raise serious concerns regarding a recent bill sponsored by Congressman Issa to transfer additional lands to the United States government for the Pechanga Band.
The bill, HR 2963, which was passed in September, transferred land in Riverside and San Diego Counties for “the protection, preservation, and maintenance of the archaeological, cultural, and wildlife resources thereon”. Based on their experience with the Great Oak Ranch transfer, the City of Temecula and local residents sought and received language in HR 2963 that would restrict development. However, only time will tell if the bill language is enough to protect the invaluable cultural and archaeological resources from the development plans of tribal officials.
In response, Pechanga's General Counsel John Macarro, wrote, "Once the land is placed in trust, a tribe has complete zoning and planning authority over it and can change land uses just as a county or city can change or update its general plan or zoning designations." Meaning: Just because we said we wanted to maintain cultural sites and don't propose development if you just give us the land free, doesn't mean we can't put a golf course there.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Darrell Issa (R) SCREWS Temecula Indians Rewards Pechanga for ICRA Violations
U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa (R) has rewarded the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for their violations of the ICRA in penning legislation to give 1,000 additional acres of Federal Lands AND the Indian Cemetary to Pechanga.
The Pechanga Tribe ran $50 million worth of commercials during February for their Prop. 94. One of those commercials said that they were ONE TRIBE and in the area for 10,000 years.
Yet, during Pechanga's recent decimation of members of their tribe, when they send 300 of their family packing, they claimed wrongly in the disenrollment decisions that Paulina Hunter was from a different Temecula area tribe. What? Then, when ancestors of these "different" tribesman are buried in the Indian Cemetary, what RIGHT does Pechanga have to claim it?
After hearing of the word of Temecula Indians:
Some of a group of former Pechanga members who have been disenrolled in recent years opposed the bill because they said, once in the tribe's hands, they could be barred from visiting a place that has spiritual and historical value to them.
Here's Issa's weak statement: Issa has said that such access has never been a problem in previous land transfers, (UH ISSA did you miss THIS?) and Hill, his spokesman, said the issue was never part of legislative debate over the bill.
Issa studiously forgets that in KNBC's report, WITHOUT A TRIBE, children were FORCIBLY REMOVED by Pechanga Tribal Rangers. He disregards that Joe Liska has been BANNED from visiting his father's grave. We discussed this when Gloria Romero had a trespassing bill up in Pechanga's Tribal Purge
Issa must have missed this letter:
Dear Senate Committee and Senior Counsel Rollie Wilson,
Please do not consider transferring land to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians at your meeting on Thursday.The land should be transferred to all Indians with ties to the cultural and sacred sites. If a transfer occurs that fails to include ownership and use rights for all affected Indians, the Pechanga Band will do what it has done before and deny access to individuals who have undisputed cultural and lineal ties to the sacred sites but who are not considered Pechanga members.I also oppose H.R. 2963 based on the Pechanga Band’s actions to deprive and deny individuals of their human and civil rights.
No entity that participates in, supports, or otherwise partakes in human and/or civil rights violations should benefit from the public trust. The actions taken by the Pechanga Band -denial of due process, failure to provide equal protection of the laws, establishment of ex post facto laws, etc.- mirror those which led to the introduction and passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("ICRA"). The ICRA was intended to “… protect individual Indians from arbitrary and unjust actions of tribal governments” and to secure for the individual American Indian the broad constitutional rights afforded all other American citizens.However, Pechanga Tribal officials have hid behind the Tribe’s sovereignty to escape prosecution and to prevent the victims of their actions from seeking recourse for the injury and harm resulting from the human and civil rights violations. Although the tribal officials may be immune from suit, this does not equate to innocence of action.
Additionally, I would ask Congress to take a hard look at lands previously transferred to trust for the Pechanga Band. Specifically, the Great Oak Ranch was transferred with the intent of protecting it and its invaluable resources from a proposed transmission line project that threatened to negatively impact the Great Oak and other resources.Over the course of several years, the Pechanga Band spent a great amount of time and money lobbying Congress to protect the Great Oak Ranch. Many meetings were held between Pechanga officials, government agencies, and Congressional members regarding the issue. During those meetings, it was stressed that the Great Oak and the Great Oak Ranch needed to be protected from construction impacts and the Pechanga Band had no intent to change the use of the ranch. In fact, Congressman Issa introduced at least one bill to protect the Great Oak and the Great Oak Ranch from the transmission project.
Today, with the Great Oak and the Great Oak Ranch spared from the transmission line project and the property transferred into trust, a portion of the Ranch has been turned into a staging area for on-going construction projects both on the Ranch and on adjacent properties. The character of the Ranch has been drastically changed and in no way reflects the “no change in use” mantra used by Pechanga officials in lobbying Congress and federal agencies for its protection and transfer to trust.
Please do not consider a yes on H.R. 2963
Shame on Darrell Issa
The Pechanga Tribe ran $50 million worth of commercials during February for their Prop. 94. One of those commercials said that they were ONE TRIBE and in the area for 10,000 years.
Yet, during Pechanga's recent decimation of members of their tribe, when they send 300 of their family packing, they claimed wrongly in the disenrollment decisions that Paulina Hunter was from a different Temecula area tribe. What? Then, when ancestors of these "different" tribesman are buried in the Indian Cemetary, what RIGHT does Pechanga have to claim it?
After hearing of the word of Temecula Indians:
Some of a group of former Pechanga members who have been disenrolled in recent years opposed the bill because they said, once in the tribe's hands, they could be barred from visiting a place that has spiritual and historical value to them.
Here's Issa's weak statement: Issa has said that such access has never been a problem in previous land transfers, (UH ISSA did you miss THIS?) and Hill, his spokesman, said the issue was never part of legislative debate over the bill.
Issa studiously forgets that in KNBC's report, WITHOUT A TRIBE, children were FORCIBLY REMOVED by Pechanga Tribal Rangers. He disregards that Joe Liska has been BANNED from visiting his father's grave. We discussed this when Gloria Romero had a trespassing bill up in Pechanga's Tribal Purge
Issa must have missed this letter:
Dear Senate Committee and Senior Counsel Rollie Wilson,
Please do not consider transferring land to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians at your meeting on Thursday.The land should be transferred to all Indians with ties to the cultural and sacred sites. If a transfer occurs that fails to include ownership and use rights for all affected Indians, the Pechanga Band will do what it has done before and deny access to individuals who have undisputed cultural and lineal ties to the sacred sites but who are not considered Pechanga members.I also oppose H.R. 2963 based on the Pechanga Band’s actions to deprive and deny individuals of their human and civil rights.
No entity that participates in, supports, or otherwise partakes in human and/or civil rights violations should benefit from the public trust. The actions taken by the Pechanga Band -denial of due process, failure to provide equal protection of the laws, establishment of ex post facto laws, etc.- mirror those which led to the introduction and passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("ICRA"). The ICRA was intended to “… protect individual Indians from arbitrary and unjust actions of tribal governments” and to secure for the individual American Indian the broad constitutional rights afforded all other American citizens.However, Pechanga Tribal officials have hid behind the Tribe’s sovereignty to escape prosecution and to prevent the victims of their actions from seeking recourse for the injury and harm resulting from the human and civil rights violations. Although the tribal officials may be immune from suit, this does not equate to innocence of action.
Additionally, I would ask Congress to take a hard look at lands previously transferred to trust for the Pechanga Band. Specifically, the Great Oak Ranch was transferred with the intent of protecting it and its invaluable resources from a proposed transmission line project that threatened to negatively impact the Great Oak and other resources.Over the course of several years, the Pechanga Band spent a great amount of time and money lobbying Congress to protect the Great Oak Ranch. Many meetings were held between Pechanga officials, government agencies, and Congressional members regarding the issue. During those meetings, it was stressed that the Great Oak and the Great Oak Ranch needed to be protected from construction impacts and the Pechanga Band had no intent to change the use of the ranch. In fact, Congressman Issa introduced at least one bill to protect the Great Oak and the Great Oak Ranch from the transmission project.
Today, with the Great Oak and the Great Oak Ranch spared from the transmission line project and the property transferred into trust, a portion of the Ranch has been turned into a staging area for on-going construction projects both on the Ranch and on adjacent properties. The character of the Ranch has been drastically changed and in no way reflects the “no change in use” mantra used by Pechanga officials in lobbying Congress and federal agencies for its protection and transfer to trust.
Please do not consider a yes on H.R. 2963
Shame on Darrell Issa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)