Tribal Leader's Forum To Hold Event Where APARTHEID is Still Practiced

With an event looking to hightlight ways to get more cooperation from the US Government, it's tragic and shameful that the Tribal Leader’s Forum chooses to hold an even at the reservation (Pechanga Reservation) that leads in human and civil rights abuses in California's Indian Country.  One that practices APARTHEID on reservation lands.



From their newsletter:

Once again, tribal governments and Native communities find themselves in a volatile and unstable political environment.  Although tribal governments have made significant progress in advancing and protecting sovereign rights, they face a wide array of new and outstanding issues and challenges. 

We say:

Tribal governments find themselves in an unstable political environment because many have chosen not to uphold either their own constitutions, nor the will of their people.    Disenrollments, moratoriums and banishments have become the way.  Leaders lie to Congress to gain land.   They try to steal water from reservation allottees, so that casinos will benefit, while the land lies barren, in a plan so egregious, the the BIA has to stand up for allottees at the expense of tribal leaders.
Tribal governments face issues and challenges because some tribes, such as:  Pechanga, Picayune, Redding, Enterprise, Snoqualmie, Mooretown, San Pascual and the CHEROKEE cause politicians to have to think twice about what they are getting into business with some tribes.  If tribes like those above can cheat, defraud, and steal from their own people, can they be considered trustworthy?

Congratulations to Native American Leaders, who turn a blind eye to the abuses of Native Americans BY Native Americans.

Read more on the practice of Apartheid by the Pechanga Tribe
Read more on the abuses by Enterprise Rancheria
Read more of the Theft of Per Capita, Health Care from Native Americans
Read more on the HERO of Redding Rancheria Robert Foreman
Read more on the Native American Hall of Shame

Snoqualmie Banishments: Do They Equate to Arbitrary Exile? Is this a Treaty Violation?

One of the banished Snoqualmie members, Carolyn Lubenau believes that the Snoqualmie Tribal Council is guilty of treaty violations. Here is a comment from her that has been promoted to a full post. Thank you Carolyn for your post.

We have posted on the Snoqualmie issues HERE HERE AND HERE



In answer to the question - "what the federal government actually can do" - the first thing they can do is honor our treaties.

I personally testified at the listening session in Albuquerque, New Mexico a few weeks ago and I was the only person there to speak about disenrollments/banishments.

I am one of 9 tribal members illegally banished by the Snoqualmie Tribal council - I will not say we were banished by our tribe because our tribe had no real say in this and have since overwhelmingly reinstated us back into the tribe but the tribal council found guilty of violating our civil rights will still not honor the will of the people and reinstate us.

This illegal banishment was overturned in a Federal court case in Seattle, Washington (Sweet vs
Hinzman).

My tribe signed the 1855 Pt. Elliot Treaty and it has this article in it: ....."Nor will they make war on any other tribe
except in self-defense, but will submit all matters of difference between them and the other Indians to the Government of the United States or its agent for decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said Indians commit depredations on other Indians within the Territory the same rule shall prevail as that prescribed in this article in cases of depredations against citizens."

Banishment and disenrollments are the acts of tyrants and thieves - depredations - "a destructive action". We have a treaty right to be protected and the Department of the Interior (Larry Echo Hawk) is not doing their job. I hope the State Department (Hillary Rodham Clinton) is all over them for sending this problem on to them because they also have a job to do now and that is to defend against "Human Rights violations".

Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

Banishments and disenrollments are the very definition of "arbitrary exile".

To continue to cloak these hateful crimes under "sovereignty" is dishonorable and tribes should condemn these actions and stand out against them. Honorable nations should waive their "sovereign immunity" over civil rights issues and protect all of their people - they should not be afraid to defend their actions if they are honorable ones.

In honoring our treaty we cannot make war against them but we can take up our pens and write.....let us see if the "pen is mightier than the sword".

Snoqualmie 9

Echo Hawk To Look Into Snoqualmie Banishment Too?

I heard from our friends from Snoqualmie, Here's part of the communication

I think this is really good news. I also got an email today from Larry Echo Hawk that they are going to look into our illegal banishment from our tribe. As you know, the Federal court over-turned our banishment but the tribal council will still not allow us back into the tribe even though the general membership voted overwhelmingly to reinstate us.

This is excellent time to push for all of the disenrolled and banished American Indians because of the United States Department of State discussion about the United States human rights record with the American Indians is happening in two weeks in New Mexico and Arizona. This is the first time that the United States is coming under this review and it only happens once every four years. I will be attending and speaking at the session in Alburquerque on March 16.

One of the goals of the Human Rights effort is to "hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights"

“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

In the Western Legal History (Volume 17, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2004 by Professor David E. Wilkins looks into the history of this subject in "Exiling One's Kin: Banishment and Disenrollment in Indian Country". Professor Wilkins describes these as actions "which violate not only indigenous values and traditions, but the basic civil and human rights".

I am praying that these illegal exiles from our tribes can be stopped. That we have available to us every opportunity to be heard and the tribal governments cannot disenroll and banish their citizens from their base rolls without a Federal hearing. I will never stop until it is a federal crime to violate the civil rights of American Indians.

I am thanking the ancestors today for getting you (US)a step closer!

Thank you my friend and we hope that Larry Echo Hawk does the right thing. Snoqualmie, Pechanga, Redding, Enterprise, San Pascual, Jamul Indian Village ALL have had their basic civl and human rights VIOLATED.

The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, which hijacked the Temecula Band of Luiseno Indian's federal recognition, is well known for terminating Indians from their rightful place in the tribe. Since the advent of casino gaming Pechanga's disenrollment of 230 adults from the tribe is second only to the Picayune Rancheria in the termination of Native Americans in CA.

Snoqualmie Tribe's Casino Hurt by Banishment Controversy and Setbacks

The Snoqualmie Tribe's Casino is not doing very well. Could it be that customers didn't like the way they treated their members, with banishment for those that disagree?

We've discussed Snoqualmie many times HERE and Here and HERE


Snoqualmie Casino’s one-year anniversary passed quietly in November, met with none of the fanfare that accompanied its opening in 2008.The Snoqualmie Tribe had hoped the casino would bring in an influx of money to the tribe and an elevated standard of living for its 600 Native American members. But the casino’s revenue has been much lower than anticipated, and it has been marred with setbacks, conflict and controversy.

Bad publicity HURTS:

In April 2008, nine tribal members, including former tribal-council members and the former tribal chairman, were banished from the tribe over an election dispute but also in part, the nine members say, due to disagreements over the casino and use of money.
Since the attempted banishment, a new tribal council has been established, and about 65 of the tribe’s 140 employees have been laid-off, according Mattson.
It amounts to a purging in the eyes of Carolyn Lubenau, a former council member and one of the nine members banished in 2008. She said that she and others warned Mattson and the administration of the high debt and untrustworthy financial backers but their calls fell on deaf ears.
“I have never been inside Snoqualmie Casino and I will never go there until the wrongs that have been done to our tribal people are corrected and the land re-blessed,” Lubenau said, adding that she’d originally been excited about the possibilities of improved healthcare and education for the Snoqualmie people, but hasn’t seen the promised fruits.

The banishment, which a federal court overturned last spring on the grounds that it was a violation of civil rights, has been re-established, according to Lubenau and another banished member, Sharon Frelinger, former tribal treasurer who raised questions about the tribe’s audits and expenditures. The two received a letter that the banishment was re-established and would be in place for seven years. During that time, Frelinger said, the banished members could not attend tribal events or talk to the media.

Stay away from Snoqualmie's Casino!

More on the Snoaqualmie Banishment Civil Rights Trial

A federal-court judge ruled on April 30 that the Snoqualmie Tribe violated the right to due process of nine tribe members that it banished last year. ICRA MUST BE SUPPORTED BY OUR JUDGES.

“I’m very grateful for Judge Robart. He handled the issue very well for both Indian sovereignty and for individual Native American civil rights,” said Carolyn Lubenau, who was a tribal council vice chairwoman, before her banishment.

Judge James L. Robart set aside the banishment of the nine tribe members, and placed a 90-day limit on the tribe members’ social banishment. The social banishment prevents them from visiting tribal lands or other tribal members.


During the suit, the tribe argued that it had the sole authority to determine membership and punish tribe members, because of the tribe’s sovereignty. The banished tribe members argued that they did not receive adequate notice of the banishment proceedings, nor did they have an opportunity to defend themselves from the banishment.

The judge ruled that the banished members did not receive adequate notice and a chance to defend their rights.

In lawsuits like the Snoqualmie banishment case, federal courts walk a fine line between protecting the rights afforded to all Americans — such as the right to due process — and interfering with a tribe’s interest in sovereignty and internal control over tribal government.

“I think they both can exist peacefully,” Lubeanu said.

Snoqualmie Tribal Administrator Matt Matson noted that the ruling did create broad implications on tribal sovereignty. He wrote in an e-mail to the SnoValley Star that the tribe was considering its options and would not rush to decide what it would do next.

At the end of the 90-day period, the tribe could seek to have the nine members banished again.

“If they still feel that it’s something they should do, then they should have valid charges before they pursue something,” Lubenau said.

According to court documents, Lubenau and several of the other tribe members were banished for “crimes amounting to treason.” Lubenau and former tribal council chairman Bill T. Sweet were accused of operating a shadow tribal government.

Lubenau and others, who were not only banished but were disenrolled from tribal membership, cannot seek to be reinstated as tribal members until the 90-day social banishment period is over. The tribe removed them from its membership rolls because they allegedly did not meet the tribe’s standard of 1/8 blood relationship for membership.

For Lubenau, the experience has opened her eyes to the problem of tribal banishment, which she says has happened to people like her at other tribes across the country.

“Banishment is a horrible, evil punishment,” Lubenau said.

Even though the dispute with her own tribe is probably not over, Lubenau would like to help other Native Americans who have been banished by their tribes. The process for contesting a tribe’s banishment action is expensive, and she thinks that many have suffered their banishments in silence because they could not afford to fight back.

“After the ruling, I guess you could say we are not home yet. We are on second base, and we won’t be done until every Native American is assured of their civil rights,” Lubenau said.

The Individual Indian Scores a VICTORY under Civil Rights Act: Another Crack in the Sovereignty Dam

Crack in the Sovereignty DAM! One of MANY to come. Congratulations to the BANISHED Snoqualmie.

In a legal first, tribal members have been victorious in Federal court challenging a tribal banishment action.


On April 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by nine Snoqualmie Tribal members challenging a banishment imposed by the government of the Snoqualmie Tribe in May last year The Court held that the Tribe's government violated the Petitioners' due process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act and vacated the full banishment. As a result, the Petitioners' membership in the Tribe, as well as their benefits, are restored. The Court also imposed a time restriction on a pre-existing social banishment that prevented the Petitioners from coming onto tribal land and attending tribal events. The Court reduced the open-ended social banishment to 90 days, further vindicating and protecting the tribal members' Indian civil rights.


The decision comes after the first trial held in Federal court under the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act seeking relief from a tribal banishment action. This is the first Federal court decision to overturn a banishment after trial upon a finding of a denial of due process. Tribal banishments and disenrollments have been increasing in frequency in recent years. The decision could have profound effects on the way tribal governments treat their tribal members, hopefully leading to greater respect for Indian civil rights.



Rob Roy Smith and Steven Kennedy of Ater Wynne represented the tribal members, all of whom were one-time elected members of the Snoqualmie Tribe's government.



Rob Roy Smith
Ater Wynne LLP
Suite 1501, 601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-3981
(206) 623-4711
(206) 467-8406 (fax)

Snoqualmie banishment case ripping apart tribe

We reported this story back in July with "Worthless BIA Allows Shadow Government...."
a story that generated over 150 comments from those banished and those who supported destroying families..


By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times staff reporter

Former members of the Snoqualmie tribe took the stand in federal court this week to fight what they say was an illegal banishment from the tribe.

They include the former chairman of the tribe, as well as several council members and an Indian tribal spiritual leader among nine former members in all seeking to overturn their banishment.

After hearing a day and a half of testimony, U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart won't rule until March at the earliest.

At issue is whether the banished tribal members received due process, including adequate notice and an opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

The judge would not take testimony on other issues, including a disputed election before the banishment last April, or which tribal leaders were the legitimately elected ones.

The controversy has embroiled this tribe of about 650 members, which opened a $375 million casino in November just a half-hour drive from downtown Seattle.

The dispute dates back to a council election in May 2007, which some tribal leaders contend had serious irregularities.

Banishment is a rare practice among Coast Salish tribes, and is the most extreme punishment within Indian Country. A banished person is no longer a member of their tribe and cannot go on tribal grounds or receive tribal benefits.

The banished took the stand to say they were barred from entering the meeting by armed Issaquah police officers hired as security by the tribe. OP: Sounds like what happened at San Pasqual, see video on the sidebar.
"We were treated like criminals," said Carolyn Lubenau, a former council member who was banished that day by her tribe.
She and others testified that they stood outside in the cold for nearly four hours, without any chance to enter the meeting and defend themselves, or hear the charges against them.

Read the full article in the SEATTLE TIMES

Snoqualmie Tribe members Ousted By Corrupt Leadership will get Day in Court

Congratulations to the Snoqualmie tribal members who were ousted from the tribe by a shadow government. We detailed the story and how the BIA stood by and watched HERE How embarrassing for the BIA to be exposed like this.

Ousted Snoqualmie tribe members get to present case


Nine ousted Snoqualmie Indians, who claim they were illegally banished by their own tribe in a bitter power struggle, will be allowed to present their case in federal court that they were denied due process.

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart ruled Sept. 5 that he has jurisdiction to hear the matter brought by the banished tribal members against the sitting tribal council. He denied a procedural motion by the tribe's leadership to dismiss the case.
Some of the banished tribal members say they were thrilled to have the chance to make their case in court.

"I was hoping this was America," said Bill Sweet, the ousted chairman of the council. "Rights are just that, rights. This isn't a communist country, this is the United States, and everyone has the right to be heard."
Sharon Frelinger, elected to the council in May 2007 only to be banished within a year, said, "I am ecstatic."

"This represents hope for other Native Americans that there might be a place where we can be heard. Even though they are a sovereign nation, you still cannot treat your people without due process."

Following a new tribal election in September 2007, the tribe in April "clarified" the enrollment of more than 40 members, cutting off their right to hold office or vote. The tribe also banished nine members, including several elders and a leader of the Indian Shaker church.

RELATED: Interior Department has ETHICAL ISSUES

Where have the Snoqualmie Disenrolled/Banished Gone?

In may we reported on the Snoqualmie Tribe's unlawful disenrollment of tribal members HERE and more on the lawsuit HERE Since then, it's been pretty quiet news-wise.
Have they given up? Are they still fighting? Or, are they just laying low. Snoqualmie BANISHED, feel free to publicize your fight here. Please tell your family that you have been given a platform to tell your stories here. Our traffic is growing and more visitors from Washington DC come here as a result.

Are you ready to keep this on the front burner?

Snoqualmie Tribe BANISHES Chairman and TERMINATES 43

The article says disenrollment, but then, that makes it sound like they were kicked out of a country club. They in fact, TERMINATED them, much as the government of the US termnated Indians. Now, tribes are doing it to themselves, while the government stands by and watches in SATISFACTION.

Article HERE
SNOQUALMIE, Wash. - In November, the Snoqualmie Tribe will open the doors to a brand-new casino about 30 minutes southeast of Seattle. But instead of the media spotlighting pre-opening news on the $330 million project, the focus has shifted to the banishment of nine tribal members and the disenrollment of about 43.
The decision to banish former Chairman Bill T. Sweet and several of his family members, among other supporters, was made final during a closed-door general membership meeting at the Issaquah Hilton April 28. In addition to voting on the banishments, the tribal council announced that the 43 individuals purged from the rolls failed to meet the blood quantum requirement for membership. According to a tribal press release, some members have already appealed the decision, while others have accepted it.
Councilmember and Chief Nathan Patrick Barker said that Sweet and some of his supporters recently attempted to seize control of bank accounts, shut down health and social programs, fire the entire staff and reach out to the BIA in an effort to receive backup on the effort. They are accused of running a ''shadow government.'' ''They tried to undermine the tribal government in every shape and form, and that was what they were judged on,'' he said. Sweet, who was suspended as chairman in August 2007, has his own take on the events that led to his fate. And Barker was elected to the council during a general membership and emergency election meeting in September.
For those facing banishment, the punishment is harsh. They are purged from the rolls and no longer eligible to receive benefits or dividends from future casino revenues. And those banished are no longer allowed to participate in tribal government and events, or even claim Indian identity.

Sweet's problems began during elections last May. He recalled that the election went according to protocol, and those that were nominated and elected are the true tribal council to this day. Barker, who served as the sergeant-at-arms during that election, said that a nomination to move the election process to the beginning of the meeting after the agenda was the first inconsistency to take place that day. He claimed the real eyebrow-raiser occurred when Sweet closed nominations while four tribal members stood waiting to nominate their person of choice for the council.
He also said that a former councilmember was forbidden to vote because she forgot to bring her tribal identification. The rule requiring members to present their IDs during elections was approved at the last meeting in 2006. Those minutes were not ratified by the council prior to the election, which Barker said makes that rule unenforceable.