BIA Steps Into Chukchansi Disputed Election. Inconsistent Federal Interference Hurts Tribe, Disenrollees and Indian Country

The FRESNO BEE continues its fine reporting on the Chukchansi issue. The Chukchansi Council is well know for stripping their tribe of over 75% of their membership, leaving elders in the cold because of greed. Those greedy factions, like jackals and vultures are still fighting over the scraps.
The Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs has finally stepped into the feud over control of the Picayune
Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians — and its lucrative Highway 41 casino — by identifying Nancy Ayala as the tribe's leader.

No so fast, said an attorney for one of Ayala's two adversaries, Reggie Lewis, who also wants control of the Madera County tribe and its estimated haul of $9 million a month from slot machines and table games.Robert Rosette, who represents Lewis, said Monday that the BIA only ruled that the Dec. 1 tribal electionwas valid; it did not establish Ayala as the current tribal leader.

"The BIA puts us one step closer to resolution," Rosette said.

A Fresno federal judge will rule this week who is the rightful leader.
For years, factions led by Ayala, Lewis and Morris Reid have vied for power. Though the dispute has
exploded in several violent skirmishes, including a riot in February 2012, the BIA took a hands-off
approach.

In March, dispute over who are the rightfully elected tribal council members led Rabobank to freeze the
tribe's bank account. This put the tribe at risk of defaulting on roughly $310 million in bonds for Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino near Coarsegold.

Ayala's group blamed Lewis and his faction for the delay in bond payments. Under Ayala's leadership, the tribe figured out a plan to make bond payments, but members still fight over who's in charge.
In April, the Ayala faction filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Fresno, asking the court to recognize it as the rightful leaders. Federal Judge Michael J. Seng is mulling over the issue.

That same month, the BIA got involved when Reid submitted grant proposals on behalf of the tribe. In a May 17 letter to Reid, the BIA informed him that his faction does not represent the tribe's governing council.

In the letter, the BIA ruled that the Dec. 1 election was valid and said the governing body "authorized to
conduct government to government with the BIA" comprises: Ayala, chair; Lewis, vice chair; Tracy
Brechbuehl, secretary; Karen Wynn, treasurer; and members-at-large Chance Alberta, Charles Sargosa
and Carl "Buzz" Bushman.

Because Ayala's supporters include Brechbuehl, Wynn and Sargosa, she has a four-vote majority to run
the tribe, she contends. Alberta and Bushman support Lewis.

Monday, Reid said he has filed an appeal to the BIA ruling. He also said he is seeking legal standing in the tribe's federal case.

"We are still key players," said Reid, who has been involved in tribal leadership — and upheavals — since the 1990s when the Chukchansi casino was first planned. It opened in June 2003.

Read more about Picayune Rancheria here

California Legislators Says SCREW YOU CA VOTERS. We will do What we WANT. Approve North Fork Rancheria OFF RESERVATION Casino.

Madera County's North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians is a step closer to getting a casino after the Assembly narrowly ratified a gambling compact on Thursday morning.

The floor vote came months after Gov. Jerry Brown affirmed the federal government's determination that the North Fork tribe could build a casino on a 305-acre parcel of land near Madera, miles from their ancestral home in the Sierra foothills near Yosemite.  OP:  Wonder how much Jerry Brown got from North Fork?

The unconventional process has spurred intense lobbying, with opponents saying the compact contradicts the principle of Indians building on existing tribal lands. The compacts also are opposed by competing tribal casinos.

"It's a compact that completely changes the public policy for gaming in the state of California," said David Quintana, a lobbyist who represents tribes including the Chukchansi, whose Picayune Rancheria has opposed the North Fork casino. "How do you tell the next poor tribe with a compelling story in a remote location 'no'?"   OP:  QUINTANA you work for pigs....shut up.

But Assembly Member Isadore Hall, D-Compton, who carried Assembly Bill 277, cast the measure as a sorely needed economic boost for the Central Valley. He said the North Fork Indians deserve "the same right granted to every other sovereign tribe" in California.

"This compact would put Californians back to work," Hall said in a speech on the Assembly floor, adding that "tribal gaming has replaced welfare with work. Tribal gaming has replaced despair with hope and dependency with self-reliance."

To get to this point, the North Fork tribe has gone through a nearly decade-long approval process that included getting the blessings of the federal government, California, and Madera County. It survived a lawsuit challenging the federal government taking into trust the land on which the casino would be built.

Assembly Member Frank Bigelow, R-O'Neals, whose district enfolds the tribe and the proposed casino site, said the bill would reinvigorate what has become "a shell of a community" beset by economic malaise.

"The tribe has successfully navigated the difficult federal process and has more than the necessary local support to achieve the goal of putting the people back to work and including their community," Bigelow said.

A leader of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, which operates the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino in Coarsegold, criticized the Assembly's action.

"It's very unfortunate that the Assembly, acting on inaccurate information, decided to give momentum to an off-reservation casino that flies in the face of what California's voters have approved," said Nancy Ayala, chairwoman of one faction of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians.  OP:  So Nancy gives a shit about the California voters?  What about her OWN PEOPLE?   We say, SHUT your PIE HOLE, Nancy.

"This illegal casino will disturb the balance of tribal gaming in our region, risking jobs and the Chukchansi tribe's prosperity by playing favorites and choosing to give the Mono tribe's massive casino an advantage over every other tribe.  OP:  YOU LOST any right to cry about prosperity, when you eliminated that opportunity for 75% of your tribe.

"Just as bad, the Assembly is setting a dangerous precedent. If a casino 40 miles off the Mono reservation is allowed to move forward, how long till we see more applications for more off-reservation casinos? Not long at all."

Paralleling the North Fork tribe's quest for a casino is a similar push by the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria near Oroville. As with the North Fork tribe, the governor has backed the federal government's decision to set aside casino land distinct from the Enterprise Rancheria> tribe's existing land, and has signed off on putting 40 acres of land in Yuba County in trust. The Legislature has not officially introduced a bill to affirm that compact.  OP:  PLEASE DON'T REWARD Enterprise for it's human rights violations

The legislation approved Thursday also advances a compact between California and the Wiyot Tribe. In March, the Wiyot Tribe surrendered the right to build on its environmentally sensitive land in exchange for a chunk of the proceeds from the North Fork tribe's gambling profits; if the North Fork tribe doesn't get the necessary approval, the Wiyot Tribe can nix the compact.

"This tribe has survived disease, slavery and expulsion from their land," Assembly Member Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, said of the Wiyot Tribe, adding that the tribe has managed to endure persecution and survive but "badly" needs the revenue from the compact to fund social programs.

The bill's fate was uncertain throughout the morning. It initially appeared to garner 38 votes, three short of a majority, before ultimately attaining the 41 needed to pass. A dozen lawmakers opposed it, with the rest of the 80-member house not voting. The bill now heads to the Senate.

"We already knew that it was going to be close," Hall told The Sacramento Bee after the vote. "Some members were in contemplation. They wanted to be the last person to vote with the bill."

Chukchansi Leadership Dispute PART TWO: Joyce Burel IDRS Mediator, Relation to Reggie Lewis, Sides with...REGGIE LEWIS

That's a reminder to those of us from Pechanga when a tribal council member, who was late to our disenrollment appeal, sided with his MOTHER and his AUNT.   His mother, who SLEPT through our presentation.

Just WHO is on staff at Indian Dispute Resolution Services, who "mediated" this dispute at Picayune?  What could go wrong?


JOYCE BUREL-DIRECT RELATION to REGGIE LEWIS, and on the picayune tribal council as chairman and then secretary when picayune FIRST INSTIGATED and then COMPLETED the arbitrary and capricious disenrollment of over 600 people (children and elders included) from picayune rancheria in 2006--her signature on over SIX HUNDRED disenrollment documents...

from the "indian dispute resolution services" staff webpage:

Ms. Joyce Burel (Picayne/Chukchansi) LMFT has served IDRS as a Senior Trainer, Facilitator and Mediator since 1997. She serves as a lead trainer in IDRS Workshops on Cross-Cultural Communication and Negotiation Skills and Processes, and in IDRS Workshops on Introductory and Advanced Mediation/Peacemaking. She brings an unusual combination of experience to IDRS.

On one hand, she is an astute practitioner and trainer schooled in a range of conflict resolution disciplines. At the same time, she has accumulated a wealth of practical experience as a tried and tested Indian leader.

Ms. Burel has served as the elected Chairperson and later as Tribal Council Secretary of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians in Coarsegold, CA. Prior to these positions, she served on the Tribe’s Housing Board of Commissioners for four years. Working in these roles, she has the opportunity to be integrally involved in the entire range of her Tribe’s internal matters. In addition, she has shepherded her Tribe through extensive external negotiations with federal, state and county government agencies, local political jurisdictions, and private interests in the non-Indian community regarding economic development and land use and acquisition issues.

 Ms. Burel earned her BA Degree in Anthropology with a special focus on Native American Studies, and her MA Degree in Counseling from Sonoma State University (Rohnnert Park, CA). She is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT). She received training and was certified as a mediator by IDRS and was placed on the IDRS Panel of Professional Mediators in 1996.

Harold Monteau Opinion: Indian Civil Rights Act a FAILURE

An opinion piece from Harold Monteau in Indian Country Today on the FAILURE of the Indian Civil Rights Act.

The Indian Civil Rights Act has been a dismal failure, if one considers its original intent; to protect tribal members and others subject to tribal jurisdiction from arbitrary and capricious acts by the tribal governing body and individual tribal officials. That is, unless a tribe has adopted the rights set out in the ICRA as substantive tribal law with remedies beyond the restrictive “habeas corpus” Federal Court relief. Some tribes have adopted the substantive rights in the ICRA but extend civil remedies beyond the restrictive “habeas corpus” and even allow for monetary damages (only where the tribe is covered by insurance or other such indemnification). Those tribes are in the minority. Unfortunately many tribes still hide behind the tribe’s sovereign immunity as they commit arbitrary rights violations upon their own membership and others.

Original Pechanga’s Blog Native American Hall of Fame Read More HERE

Loss of Tribal Citizenship is WRONG and OFFENSIVE

Dear Congressional Staffers, this is something you should read up on, as you meet with terminated Indians.

I find it disconcerting that in all the years we have had mass terminations of tribal citizenships, no politician has stood up for those Indians who have been harmed by their tribe.  (See:  Like Being Raped and Going to your Rapist for Justice)

When you give it a cute moniker like “disenrollment”, it takes on the context of, say, losing you membership in the P. T. A. And that makes it simpler for a politician to take tribal money and with the phrase, “tribes can choose their own membership” they can avoid taking a closer look at what it really entails.

Take American citizenship, the U.S. Government can strip an American of citizenship for few reasons, here’s one from US CODE 1481:

7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

We are talking about treason or overthrowing the government as a serious offense. No disenrollees have threatened overthrow of their tribal government. No bearing arms against tribal councils. In Indian Country, you can lose your citizenship for simply disagreeing with the tribal council. Putting a “wrong” member on the council or speaking your mind about their business entities can get one stripped of their citizenship.

How many American’s have been stripped of their citizenship, can you name ONE? Did Christopher Boyce, who sold secrets to the Russians, or Robert Hannssen?  NO.  Has Charles Manson lost his citizenship? No. How about American terrorists who advocate death to American and sharia law? Nope, uh-uh, but in Indian Country, the number is in the THOUSANDS. We have tribes like Snoqualmie in Washington, that have stripped citizenship simply for taking a position opposite of the tribal council.

On the Pechanga Reservation in Temecula, Original Pechanga allottee descendents have had their citizenship taken away, along with voting rights, the right to health care, the right to speak at meeting, even when the situation is directly relating to them, such as water rights. It's virtual apartheid. Pechanga, headed my Mark Macarro, the subject of a recall attempt, tried to usurp the water rights of allottees, lying to congressional staffers about how many allottees were still on the reservation. Redding Rancheria even terminated 25% of their tribe, including their FIRST Tribal chairman. We have tribes like Snoqualmie in Washington, that have stripped citizenship simply for taking a position opposite of the tribal council. And the Picayune Rancheria already terminated 50% of their tribe and are looking at more.

We have politicians who turn a blind eye, because stripping citizenship comes now with a cute moniker: disenrollment. The same politicians who rightfully found the apartheid policy of sovereign country of South Africa abhorrent, now side with tribes who are practicing the same apartheid in their own districts. Equally confusing, the NAACP in CA has taken money from tribes that violate their people's civil rights. We can't get the ACLU to be interested and the Native American Rights Fund won't help those Native Americans who have lost their RIGHTS.

Politicians in CA who were vehemently appalled over neighbor state Arizona’s stricter immigration enforcement laws, going so far as to shrilly calling for boycotting that state over ‘possible’ civil rights violation, are supporting tribes who have actually stripped voting rights, health care, per capita (now totaling $500 million), elder care, educational assistance. They recently passed the Dream Act providing educational assistance to non-citizens, yet won’t stand up for actual citizens.

They tell themselves “well it’s only 9 people, or it’s only 75 people”. Yet how many does it have to be to make it wrong? 75 Redding tribal members, stripped of their citizenship is akin to 80 million Americans losing theirs. The Picayune Rancheria took away citizenship to fully 50% of their tribal people. When is it wrong, or rather “wrong enough”. Would they stand up for union members who didn’t get to vote? Or what if say, the GOP got 25% of Democrats excluded? Would it be wrong? Of course it would.

It’s past time to take it seriously and to stand up for the rights of the individual Indian.

Our government needs to do its job and stand up for the weak and defenseless. Exercising its moral outrage includes:

1. Eliminate funding for tribes who violate the rights of their people.
2. No longer take land into trust for abusive tribes
3. Place enforcement actions into the Indian Civil Rights Act

Tribes have a right to do wrong, but they shouldn’t be supported by our politicians when they do.