We knew the claims that Pechanga and the other three tribes were making were false. They tried to present the best case scenario. ( every new machine whirring at 100% of what the current machines do. Won't happen.)
This is NOT a good deal for California, but it's an EXCELLENT deal for the four tribes.
http://nounfairdeals.com/blog/new-fiscal-report-questions-props-94-97/
Monday, January 7, 2008
CA Props 94-97; NO to Indian Gaming Compacts
Vote NO on expanded gaming. This deal is NOT good for CA, it's great for the four tribes, including civil rights violator Pechanga.
California Propositions 94–97: Indian Gaming Compacts – NO
By Peter L. StahlPete Rates the Propositions
Props 94 through 97 would allow four southern California Indian tribes to expand their casinos so they would be among the largest in the world. In exchange the tribes would pay billions of dollars into the state’s General Fund. Sounds like a painless solution California’s budget crisis, right? That’s certainly what the legislature and governor thought when they approved these compacts last June. But this isn’t a good way to balance the budget, and the agreements are tilted too heavily in the tribes’ favor anyway. We can do better—much better. Vote down the compacts to encourage a better solution to our budget crisis, or at least send the parties back to the bargaining table. OP: Trying to balance our budget with only four tribes is very poor planning.
The tribes in question—Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan and Agua Caliente—currently operate five casinos in Riverside and San Diego counties. Their existing compacts with the state allow each of them 2,000 slot machines. Props 94-97 will increase this to 5,000 for Sycuan and Agua Caliente and 7,500 for Pechanga and Morongo. For comparison, the enormous MGM Grand in Las Vegas has only half that number at 3,700.
Calculating from one of the compacts, each slot machine brings in approximately $130,000 a year in net profit (after payouts), so the four tribes’ 8,000 machines currently bring in $1.04 billion profit a year. Under the existing compacts the tribes pay nothing to the state’s General Fund. Instead, they pay roughly $74 million (THIS WILL GO AWAY in the new compacts, so in effect, $1.5 BILLION comes off the $9 Billion they are promising) into special funds for local governments, poorer tribes, and other purposes. That’s an effective tax rate of 7%. OP: If you make over $63,000 in CA,you pay 9.3%! Pretty sweet for the tribes.
Props 94-97 will impose a new payment to the General Fund. It will start with a base of $123 million (11.8% of the profit on the existing 8,000 machines), and add 15% of the net profit from the first 20,000 new slot machines, plus an additional 10% of the net profit on the final 5,000 machines at Pechanga and Morongo. If the $130,000 per machine figure holds for all new slots, this would mean $675 million in new income for the General Fund once all 25,000 new slot machines are operational. Pretty sweet for the state.
Or is it?
The profits from all 33,000 machines will be about $4.3 billion, yielding an effective tax rate of 15%. This might be high for a regular business, but we’re talking about gambling. Compare it to the Lottery, which is “taxed” at a whopping 83%—that is, of income not used for prizes or operational costs, 83% goes to public education, with the rest used for retailer commissions and bonuses. Props 94-97 will turn that equation around for Indian casinos: 85% of profit will go to the tribes, (ALL 1800 people!) the rest to the state. Obviously we should negotiate a better deal. If these propositions fail, that’s what will happen.
See the rest of the story
California Propositions 94–97: Indian Gaming Compacts – NO
By Peter L. StahlPete Rates the Propositions
Props 94 through 97 would allow four southern California Indian tribes to expand their casinos so they would be among the largest in the world. In exchange the tribes would pay billions of dollars into the state’s General Fund. Sounds like a painless solution California’s budget crisis, right? That’s certainly what the legislature and governor thought when they approved these compacts last June. But this isn’t a good way to balance the budget, and the agreements are tilted too heavily in the tribes’ favor anyway. We can do better—much better. Vote down the compacts to encourage a better solution to our budget crisis, or at least send the parties back to the bargaining table. OP: Trying to balance our budget with only four tribes is very poor planning.
The tribes in question—Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan and Agua Caliente—currently operate five casinos in Riverside and San Diego counties. Their existing compacts with the state allow each of them 2,000 slot machines. Props 94-97 will increase this to 5,000 for Sycuan and Agua Caliente and 7,500 for Pechanga and Morongo. For comparison, the enormous MGM Grand in Las Vegas has only half that number at 3,700.
Calculating from one of the compacts, each slot machine brings in approximately $130,000 a year in net profit (after payouts), so the four tribes’ 8,000 machines currently bring in $1.04 billion profit a year. Under the existing compacts the tribes pay nothing to the state’s General Fund. Instead, they pay roughly $74 million (THIS WILL GO AWAY in the new compacts, so in effect, $1.5 BILLION comes off the $9 Billion they are promising) into special funds for local governments, poorer tribes, and other purposes. That’s an effective tax rate of 7%. OP: If you make over $63,000 in CA,you pay 9.3%! Pretty sweet for the tribes.
Props 94-97 will impose a new payment to the General Fund. It will start with a base of $123 million (11.8% of the profit on the existing 8,000 machines), and add 15% of the net profit from the first 20,000 new slot machines, plus an additional 10% of the net profit on the final 5,000 machines at Pechanga and Morongo. If the $130,000 per machine figure holds for all new slots, this would mean $675 million in new income for the General Fund once all 25,000 new slot machines are operational. Pretty sweet for the state.
Or is it?
The profits from all 33,000 machines will be about $4.3 billion, yielding an effective tax rate of 15%. This might be high for a regular business, but we’re talking about gambling. Compare it to the Lottery, which is “taxed” at a whopping 83%—that is, of income not used for prizes or operational costs, 83% goes to public education, with the rest used for retailer commissions and bonuses. Props 94-97 will turn that equation around for Indian casinos: 85% of profit will go to the tribes, (ALL 1800 people!) the rest to the state. Obviously we should negotiate a better deal. If these propositions fail, that’s what will happen.
See the rest of the story
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Pechanga Civil Rights Violations Discussed on Native America Calling
Here is the site for the Native America Calling call in show that John Gomez Jr. of the American Indian Rights and Resources Organization is going to be on tommorow, 1/7/08 at 10 AM Pacfic time, 1 PM Eastern time.
The topics are going to include civil rights violations in Indian country. OP: It's not only about the unions. Pechanga has violated the civil rights of 25% of the tribe. The equivalent violation to Californians would be 8,000,000 people. It should be very embarrassing to the Pechanga Tribal Council to be included in a discussion like this. Splinter Group leader Murphy should be really excited. This is what he wanted, the split the tribe and he succeeded, so far.
The telephone number to call in to is 1 800 996 2848.
http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/
The topics are going to include civil rights violations in Indian country. OP: It's not only about the unions. Pechanga has violated the civil rights of 25% of the tribe. The equivalent violation to Californians would be 8,000,000 people. It should be very embarrassing to the Pechanga Tribal Council to be included in a discussion like this. Splinter Group leader Murphy should be really excited. This is what he wanted, the split the tribe and he succeeded, so far.
The telephone number to call in to is 1 800 996 2848.
http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/
Absolutely NO on Expanded Gaming: Investigate, Don't Collaborate
Paulina Hunter's blog has the editorial from the Sacramento Bee that criticizes the handling of compacts
NO on Prop.94: Handling of Gambling Compacts Merit Investigation
Editorial: Bungling? Or ... Handling of gambling compacts at state and federal levels merits an investigationwww.sacbee.comDueling campaign ads alternately denouncing and praising four new Indian gaming compacts began hitting airwaves across California weeks ago. Opponents and proponents of four initiative referenda on the Feb. 5 ballot – Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 – are spending millions to persuade voters to ratify the compacts or to repeal them. Despite the campaigns, the compacts could well be in effect already. In a series of curious – if not downright suspicious – actions, the disputed compacts were ratified by the U.S. secretary of the interior last month and their approval published in the Federal Register.Here's what happened. After the Legislature approved the compacts last summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent them to the California secretary of state's office. Even though the compacts were not set to become law until Jan. 1 and opponents were collecting signatures to place initiatives on the ballot to repeal them, Secretary of State Debra Bowen forwarded the agreements on to the U.S. Department of Interior in September.
Check these sites out:
www.pechanga.info
http://paulinahunterofpechanga.blogspot.com/
www.tribalcorruption.com
www.airro.org
NO on Prop.94: Handling of Gambling Compacts Merit Investigation
Editorial: Bungling? Or ... Handling of gambling compacts at state and federal levels merits an investigationwww.sacbee.comDueling campaign ads alternately denouncing and praising four new Indian gaming compacts began hitting airwaves across California weeks ago. Opponents and proponents of four initiative referenda on the Feb. 5 ballot – Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 – are spending millions to persuade voters to ratify the compacts or to repeal them. Despite the campaigns, the compacts could well be in effect already. In a series of curious – if not downright suspicious – actions, the disputed compacts were ratified by the U.S. secretary of the interior last month and their approval published in the Federal Register.Here's what happened. After the Legislature approved the compacts last summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent them to the California secretary of state's office. Even though the compacts were not set to become law until Jan. 1 and opponents were collecting signatures to place initiatives on the ballot to repeal them, Secretary of State Debra Bowen forwarded the agreements on to the U.S. Department of Interior in September.
Check these sites out:
www.pechanga.info
http://paulinahunterofpechanga.blogspot.com/
www.tribalcorruption.com
www.airro.org
Pechanga Pays $30.8 Million to Wash Hands of Guilt
Tribal Gaming Money Dwarfs All Other Contributions on California Ballot Propositions
By Frank D. Russo click for more of the story
On Friday, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, one of the big four tribes who stand to gain from passage of Propositions 94 to 97 and 17,000 new slot machines, contributed $30.8 million in support of these propositions. This brings the total to the yes on 94-97 campaign to $68 million dollars, dwarfing not only the amount raised by opponents who seek to overturn the legislature’s approval of the slot machine compacts. But all contributions made on the other ballot measures being considered February 5, 2008—including term limits.
The last regular reports of campaign contributions on the California Secretary of State’s website are out of date. OP: Could Arnold be having Ms. Bowen drag her feet on this too?
One has to look at the late and over $5,000 contributions to get an idea of where the money is coming from and going to—at least so far—on the often overlooked ballot propositions that voters will (hopefully) be grappling with in addition to choosing a Presidential candidate for the November election. Billions of dollars—estimated to be as high as a net win of $60.2 billion for these four tribes are at stake.
This may be only the beginning of money spent, almost exclusively by the tribes on the yes side. The second largest amount of money on ballot propositions in this cycle is on the “no” side of the Prop 94-97 gambling propositions, and most of it also comes from tribes—those who are not part of the arrangement with the four tribes. At least $11.5 million of the opposition funding comes from “Tribes for Fair Play” out of what appears to be $28 million raised in opposition.
There is substantial money— millions each from race tracks and labor that make up the balance. A significant portion of the money raised by opponents was spent on qualifying the four referenda for the ballot.
By contrast, the “yes on 93” campaign to reform California’s term limit laws is a piker, coming in at $10.7 million with the “no on 93 side showing a over $3.5 million in contributions. The amount of money contributed to the yes side of the casino measures on Friday alone is triple the entire amount raised by those who want to reform term limits.
OP: Why would Pechanga have to spend so much on what they think is a "NO BRAINER" for California? Because they KNOW that their Proposition 94 has the biggest chance of LOSING. Californians are learning about what they have done to their tribe, violating civil rights, abusing elders, kicking our youth out of the school, terminating members, taking away health coverage, disenfranching them via loss of voting rights.
It's a reminder of : Dost thou protest too much? Guilt driven blood money? Why doesn't Pechaga say in their ads: "We are going to give you 32,000,000 Californians $9 billion and keep $28 BILLION for the 1700 of us. There would be more of us, but our tribe eliminated 25% of our members.
By Frank D. Russo click for more of the story
On Friday, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, one of the big four tribes who stand to gain from passage of Propositions 94 to 97 and 17,000 new slot machines, contributed $30.8 million in support of these propositions. This brings the total to the yes on 94-97 campaign to $68 million dollars, dwarfing not only the amount raised by opponents who seek to overturn the legislature’s approval of the slot machine compacts. But all contributions made on the other ballot measures being considered February 5, 2008—including term limits.
The last regular reports of campaign contributions on the California Secretary of State’s website are out of date. OP: Could Arnold be having Ms. Bowen drag her feet on this too?
One has to look at the late and over $5,000 contributions to get an idea of where the money is coming from and going to—at least so far—on the often overlooked ballot propositions that voters will (hopefully) be grappling with in addition to choosing a Presidential candidate for the November election. Billions of dollars—estimated to be as high as a net win of $60.2 billion for these four tribes are at stake.
This may be only the beginning of money spent, almost exclusively by the tribes on the yes side. The second largest amount of money on ballot propositions in this cycle is on the “no” side of the Prop 94-97 gambling propositions, and most of it also comes from tribes—those who are not part of the arrangement with the four tribes. At least $11.5 million of the opposition funding comes from “Tribes for Fair Play” out of what appears to be $28 million raised in opposition.
There is substantial money— millions each from race tracks and labor that make up the balance. A significant portion of the money raised by opponents was spent on qualifying the four referenda for the ballot.
By contrast, the “yes on 93” campaign to reform California’s term limit laws is a piker, coming in at $10.7 million with the “no on 93 side showing a over $3.5 million in contributions. The amount of money contributed to the yes side of the casino measures on Friday alone is triple the entire amount raised by those who want to reform term limits.
OP: Why would Pechanga have to spend so much on what they think is a "NO BRAINER" for California? Because they KNOW that their Proposition 94 has the biggest chance of LOSING. Californians are learning about what they have done to their tribe, violating civil rights, abusing elders, kicking our youth out of the school, terminating members, taking away health coverage, disenfranching them via loss of voting rights.
It's a reminder of : Dost thou protest too much? Guilt driven blood money? Why doesn't Pechaga say in their ads: "We are going to give you 32,000,000 Californians $9 billion and keep $28 BILLION for the 1700 of us. There would be more of us, but our tribe eliminated 25% of our members.
VOTE NO ON 94
Saturday, January 5, 2008
No on 94: Schwarzenegger Scalping Tax Dollars?
Steve at ONE CITIZEN SPEAKING has a good synopsis of why we should be voting NO on the expanded gaming compacts. Here's one:
Suspect or manipulated accounting?
With all large sums of money, it is a question of having adequate safeguards and controls in place to prevent under-reporting income. There are those who believe that the state may be cheated by allowing the Indians to collect and distribute the money without strict state guidance.
OP: Look, Pechanga tried to sneak in 2,000 additional class II machines, claiming the "looks like a slot, works liks a slot, but it's not a slot" slot machines weren't included in the limit.
Suspect or manipulated accounting?
With all large sums of money, it is a question of having adequate safeguards and controls in place to prevent under-reporting income. There are those who believe that the state may be cheated by allowing the Indians to collect and distribute the money without strict state guidance.
OP: Look, Pechanga tried to sneak in 2,000 additional class II machines, claiming the "looks like a slot, works liks a slot, but it's not a slot" slot machines weren't included in the limit.
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2394792/24775516
Friday, January 4, 2008
Congratulations to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee
Let the games begin! Hillary finished THIRD, proving that her sneaky ways didn't go over with Iowans. Huckabee blew away Romney, looks like a race is coming on. Biden and Dodd are OUT for the Democrats.
Maybe Barack can convince the CA NAACP to withdraw its support of the expanded gaming agreements. I'm sure he won't convince the head of the NAACP of CA to give back their donations.
Maybe Barack can convince the CA NAACP to withdraw its support of the expanded gaming agreements. I'm sure he won't convince the head of the NAACP of CA to give back their donations.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Vote No on Pechanga: New commercial from No Unfair Deals
Vote NO on Prop. 94. Pechanga SHOULD NOT be rewarded for violating their people's civil rights, for abusing their elders, for taking educational assistance away from the children, and for creating a shrinking tribe. Vote NO on Prop. 94
Here is the new commercial from No UNFAIR Deals
The yes on the propostions also have a youtube video. Here is difference: No Unfair Deals is NOT afraid to have Californians comment on the issues. YES on Expanded Sweetheat Deals has their comments turned off! What are they afraid of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpjDK0bpoG4&feature=related
They are afraid of THE TRUTH.
Here is the new commercial from No UNFAIR Deals
The yes on the propostions also have a youtube video. Here is difference: No Unfair Deals is NOT afraid to have Californians comment on the issues. YES on Expanded Sweetheat Deals has their comments turned off! What are they afraid of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpjDK0bpoG4&feature=related
They are afraid of THE TRUTH.
Pechanga Blood says NO on Prop 94.
Pechanga videos for NO on 94. Joe Liska is Pechanga blood. His sisters keep him out of the tribe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88WhIxHdHmY
Here is one of his best videos:
IF you feel we need more gambling in California, vote yes on 95, 96 and 97, but vote NO on Pechanga. This will show that we don't think they should be rewarded with BILLIONS of our dollars for cheating their people, abusing their elders and children and taking away health care and educational assistance for a huge portion of their membership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88WhIxHdHmY
Here is one of his best videos:
IF you feel we need more gambling in California, vote yes on 95, 96 and 97, but vote NO on Pechanga. This will show that we don't think they should be rewarded with BILLIONS of our dollars for cheating their people, abusing their elders and children and taking away health care and educational assistance for a huge portion of their membership.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Pechanga Tried to Keep Us from Voting: NO on 94
Pechanga did not want the people of California to exercise their voting rights and use of the referendum that is our right. Similarly, they eliminated their own tribal members because they were afraid they MIGHT vote against some people they wanted. They were successful in controlling the ballot box in tribal votes, by violating their people's civil rights.
We have the option to vote NO on 94 as well as the other expanded gaming propositions. Pechanga certainly deserves a no vote, for the way they have cheated their own.
Here is the commercial that NO Unfair Deals is running. They've had some very good spots running on the high profile shows, including some football games. It ALSO mentions that the tribes didn't want all of us to vote. When I figure how to embed the link, I'll have it up.
Please take a look at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB9Ka478a5g&eurl=http://www.nounfairdeals.com/
Pechanga should not be rewarded with BILLIONS of dollars for trying to keep us from voting on this measure. VOTE NO on 94
We have the option to vote NO on 94 as well as the other expanded gaming propositions. Pechanga certainly deserves a no vote, for the way they have cheated their own.
Here is the commercial that NO Unfair Deals is running. They've had some very good spots running on the high profile shows, including some football games. It ALSO mentions that the tribes didn't want all of us to vote. When I figure how to embed the link, I'll have it up.
Please take a look at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB9Ka478a5g&eurl=http://www.nounfairdeals.com/
Pechanga should not be rewarded with BILLIONS of dollars for trying to keep us from voting on this measure. VOTE NO on 94
Monday, December 31, 2007
No on Prop. 94, No to Pechanga: California Tribes, Unions Bet big on Feb. Ballot
Pechanga and the other 3 tribes will be spending $50 MILLION trying to convince CA that this is a good deal. This is after some $million$ they spent trying to KEEP US from voting. First, they don't want us to vote, then, they have to spend so much to get us to vote their way. Sounds like they don't have a good compact for California. Let's vote NO on all the expanded gaming props.
Calif. tribes, horse tracks, unions bet big on February ballot
By AARON C. DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
Friday, December 28, 2007
(12-28) 17:30 PST SACRAMENTO, (AP) -- REST OF THE STORY
For all the money presidential hopefuls might spend to win California's February primary, far more may be bet on a lesser-known battle to expand Indian gambling.
Four wealthy Southern California Indian tribes are preparing to spend as much as $80 million to defend deals they struck with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
The deals would give the tribes 17,000 new slot machines — enough to fill eight Las Vegas-sized casinos. In exchange, they would share profits with California's cash-strapped general fund, which faces a multibillion dollar deficit.
The tribes — the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (which decimated their population via their Indian Removal Act) near Temecula, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Cabazon and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation near San Diego — already have contributed more than $44 million to promote their compacts.
Tribal leaders say they're convinced the deals will be a winner with voters, but they're not taking any chances. Opponents have put four referendums on the Feb. 5 ballot to overturn them.
The tribes are expected to add tens of millions of dollars to their campaign in the coming weeks and have purchased so much commercial air time that some political analysts say it could cut into the number of presidential ads voters see before the election.
Despite the onslaught, an unlikely band of opponents believes it can stop the tribes.
A racetrack owner, competing tribes and a casino-workers' union pooled their money for a signature-gathering drive to put the deals on the ballot. They're banking on an Indian-gambling backlash and say they can convince voters the deals aren't nearly as sweet as they sound on TV.
We CAN make a difference, VOTE NO on 94.
Calif. tribes, horse tracks, unions bet big on February ballot
By AARON C. DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
Friday, December 28, 2007
(12-28) 17:30 PST SACRAMENTO, (AP) -- REST OF THE STORY
For all the money presidential hopefuls might spend to win California's February primary, far more may be bet on a lesser-known battle to expand Indian gambling.
Four wealthy Southern California Indian tribes are preparing to spend as much as $80 million to defend deals they struck with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
The deals would give the tribes 17,000 new slot machines — enough to fill eight Las Vegas-sized casinos. In exchange, they would share profits with California's cash-strapped general fund, which faces a multibillion dollar deficit.
The tribes — the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (which decimated their population via their Indian Removal Act) near Temecula, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Cabazon and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation near San Diego — already have contributed more than $44 million to promote their compacts.
Tribal leaders say they're convinced the deals will be a winner with voters, but they're not taking any chances. Opponents have put four referendums on the Feb. 5 ballot to overturn them.
The tribes are expected to add tens of millions of dollars to their campaign in the coming weeks and have purchased so much commercial air time that some political analysts say it could cut into the number of presidential ads voters see before the election.
Despite the onslaught, an unlikely band of opponents believes it can stop the tribes.
A racetrack owner, competing tribes and a casino-workers' union pooled their money for a signature-gathering drive to put the deals on the ballot. They're banking on an Indian-gambling backlash and say they can convince voters the deals aren't nearly as sweet as they sound on TV.
We CAN make a difference, VOTE NO on 94.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Notice to CA State Legislators: Pechanga has 500 more taxpayers that should be in the tribe
Dear CA State Legislator,
In continuing your weak and pathetic work for us in the capitol, widening our budget gap, you claim you are looking for revenue streams and that is why you passed theses shameful memorandum of agreements. Meanwhile, in the Pechanga tribe alone, they have kept 500 members from joining the tribe, as proscribed in their Constitution and Bylaws. Each moratorium internee would have earned about $1.5 million since the opening of the casino on the reservation in Temecula (BOYCOTT PECHANGA)
That's $750,000,000 in taxable income lost to the state because you didn't stand up for the tribal members who have been cheated by the tribe. The tribes said the compacts would be good for ALL native Americans. Now, you want us to believe that the tribe won't cheat the people of CA. You take for granted your union friends, all for some spa treatments for your wives and free golf for you, because you know the unions have nowhere else to go.
Urge your constituents to vote NO on expanded gaming, tell them that you will REWORK these compacts to give rights back to all Native Americans, give the unions their due and get the environmental impacts up. Do the right thing for the people of CA. Don't just do what feels good for you.
In continuing your weak and pathetic work for us in the capitol, widening our budget gap, you claim you are looking for revenue streams and that is why you passed theses shameful memorandum of agreements. Meanwhile, in the Pechanga tribe alone, they have kept 500 members from joining the tribe, as proscribed in their Constitution and Bylaws. Each moratorium internee would have earned about $1.5 million since the opening of the casino on the reservation in Temecula (BOYCOTT PECHANGA)
That's $750,000,000 in taxable income lost to the state because you didn't stand up for the tribal members who have been cheated by the tribe. The tribes said the compacts would be good for ALL native Americans. Now, you want us to believe that the tribe won't cheat the people of CA. You take for granted your union friends, all for some spa treatments for your wives and free golf for you, because you know the unions have nowhere else to go.
Urge your constituents to vote NO on expanded gaming, tell them that you will REWORK these compacts to give rights back to all Native Americans, give the unions their due and get the environmental impacts up. Do the right thing for the people of CA. Don't just do what feels good for you.
Pechanga Indian Removal Acts II: Chronology
Got this from Paulina Hunter's My Space Blog: Read More Here
It's about how the first family to be terminated and have their cultural heritage stripped by Pechanga, were started down the path of disenrollment and removal.
Pechanga Corruption UPDATE: Chronology
As my previous post dealt with the beginning of Pechanga's corruption, here is a chronology of the disenrollment of the first family to be disenrolled en masse in the history of Pechanga.
Chronology of Events
1. In December 2001, Yolanda McCarter (niece of Irene Scearce and Ruth Masiel OP: and she is the one on the Pechanga infomercial saying she could die happy if she didn't have the casino money.) submitted a letter to Enrollment Committee demanding the Committee research several families including ours. The request stated that "this (be) straightened up before the next election in July." (So that there would be less votes, a clear sign that they wanted to disenfranchise "several families")
2. In June 2002, Enrollment Committee Chairperson Mary Magee is removed from the Committee for divulging confidential information. (She was caught talking about other families. Her sister is Gloria Wright, who is CPP) A petition is justified to amend the Disenrollment Procedures. A vote to approve or deny the petition is set for July 2002. (Petition is not brought forth until February 2003.) The newly built Pechanga Resort and Casino is opened. This is a permanent structure which replaced the original Casino structures which were in modular and sprung structure. In October 2002, 2 new members are elected to Enrollment Committee to bring membership up to required 10 members. (A member retired from Committee in September 2002). Olivia Walls is elected Committee Chair, and we request an audit of Enrollment Committee activities for the previous years and advice from our legal counsel at California Indian Legal Services on how to address wrong-doings by Committee and Committee members. Our legal counsel is told by John Macarro not to take any action to assist the Committee or answer our questions regarding the wrong-doings. (Wrong doings include enrollment of adult family members of 'certain' enrollment committee members.)
3. November 12, 2002, members of the Enrollment Committee, acting without a quorum and outside the Committee's procedures, serve several other Committee members with disenrollment summonses. The Committee members who took the action were- Irene Scearce, Ruth Masiel, Frances Miranda, Margaret Duncan, and Bobbi Lamere. Those served include John Gomez, Theresa Spears, Olivia Walls, and Sandra Garbani. (Lamere later gets her family members enrolled in the tribe, during the "moratorium"
4. On December 10, 2002, Concerned Pechanga People (These were part of the splinter group, many who were not on the original 1979 membership roll, as the Hunters were) submit documents to the Enrollment Committee questioning the lineal descent of several families including the Manuela Miranda descendents, Paulina Hunter descendents, and Garbani descendents. This action was taken a month after the above action. The Concerned Pechanga people are immediate family and friends of Committee members who initiated the November 12, 2002 action. (See list of Pechanga Enrollment Committee members, Splinter Group and Concerned Pechanga people).
PLEASE CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO READ MORE
It's about how the first family to be terminated and have their cultural heritage stripped by Pechanga, were started down the path of disenrollment and removal.
Pechanga Corruption UPDATE: Chronology
As my previous post dealt with the beginning of Pechanga's corruption, here is a chronology of the disenrollment of the first family to be disenrolled en masse in the history of Pechanga.
Chronology of Events
1. In December 2001, Yolanda McCarter (niece of Irene Scearce and Ruth Masiel OP: and she is the one on the Pechanga infomercial saying she could die happy if she didn't have the casino money.) submitted a letter to Enrollment Committee demanding the Committee research several families including ours. The request stated that "this (be) straightened up before the next election in July." (So that there would be less votes, a clear sign that they wanted to disenfranchise "several families")
2. In June 2002, Enrollment Committee Chairperson Mary Magee is removed from the Committee for divulging confidential information. (She was caught talking about other families. Her sister is Gloria Wright, who is CPP) A petition is justified to amend the Disenrollment Procedures. A vote to approve or deny the petition is set for July 2002. (Petition is not brought forth until February 2003.) The newly built Pechanga Resort and Casino is opened. This is a permanent structure which replaced the original Casino structures which were in modular and sprung structure. In October 2002, 2 new members are elected to Enrollment Committee to bring membership up to required 10 members. (A member retired from Committee in September 2002). Olivia Walls is elected Committee Chair, and we request an audit of Enrollment Committee activities for the previous years and advice from our legal counsel at California Indian Legal Services on how to address wrong-doings by Committee and Committee members. Our legal counsel is told by John Macarro not to take any action to assist the Committee or answer our questions regarding the wrong-doings. (Wrong doings include enrollment of adult family members of 'certain' enrollment committee members.)
3. November 12, 2002, members of the Enrollment Committee, acting without a quorum and outside the Committee's procedures, serve several other Committee members with disenrollment summonses. The Committee members who took the action were- Irene Scearce, Ruth Masiel, Frances Miranda, Margaret Duncan, and Bobbi Lamere. Those served include John Gomez, Theresa Spears, Olivia Walls, and Sandra Garbani. (Lamere later gets her family members enrolled in the tribe, during the "moratorium"
4. On December 10, 2002, Concerned Pechanga People (These were part of the splinter group, many who were not on the original 1979 membership roll, as the Hunters were) submit documents to the Enrollment Committee questioning the lineal descent of several families including the Manuela Miranda descendents, Paulina Hunter descendents, and Garbani descendents. This action was taken a month after the above action. The Concerned Pechanga people are immediate family and friends of Committee members who initiated the November 12, 2002 action. (See list of Pechanga Enrollment Committee members, Splinter Group and Concerned Pechanga people).
PLEASE CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO READ MORE
Saturday, December 29, 2007
PECHANGA INDIAN REMOVAL ACTS: Tribal theft totals over $142,000,000
Since 2004 when the first family to be disenrolled from Pechanga, en masse in the entire history of the tribe was terminated in the beginning of the Pechanga Indian Removal acts, the theft of members per capita has totaled over $142,000,000.
At the current per capita rate of $32,500, that total climbs by $7,637,500 per month. That's $255,000 per day that rightfully belongs to Pechanga members.
Pechanga keeps saying it's not about the money. They also say that they will be honest in counting their books. They also said that Hunters came after the casino. There was NO casino in 1895, when we got our alotment #62.
Let's match up the chairman's enrollment number versus a Hunter enrollment number. How about Council Members? Butch Murphy, Andrew Masiel? Can you beat and # in the 50's?
At the current per capita rate of $32,500, that total climbs by $7,637,500 per month. That's $255,000 per day that rightfully belongs to Pechanga members.
Pechanga keeps saying it's not about the money. They also say that they will be honest in counting their books. They also said that Hunters came after the casino. There was NO casino in 1895, when we got our alotment #62.
Let's match up the chairman's enrollment number versus a Hunter enrollment number. How about Council Members? Butch Murphy, Andrew Masiel? Can you beat and # in the 50's?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)