The Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, a 14-tribe organization that includes the biggest Southern California gaming tribes, including Morongo and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, has been circulating a letter opposing the bill on the grounds that it would shut tribes out of this potentially lucrative new form of gaming. Remember that the Pechanga Band tried to keep Californians from voting on expanded gaming. How can an organization that represents about 3,000 people hold so much control over our politicians?
Reaction from tribes to Reid’s bill was generally negative. Much of this has to do with Reid’s historically cozy relationship with Nevada casinos, and many believe the bill is written in such a way to give these casino interests a leg up over tribes in offering Internet poker. Does anyone believe the tribes would want to SHARE with Las Vegas?
Meanwhile, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said late Wednesday that his proposed online poker legislation is still alive - contrary to some published news reports.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Juaneno Recognition DELAYED Again: Frustration Mounts
A ruling on whether the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians should get federal recognition expected next week has been pushed back 60 days, another in a series of delays.
The new deadline for the decision by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, called final determination, is now on or before Feb. 14
In the letter dated Wednesday, Director Lee Fleming, says that "the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk has granted a 60-day extension for the Final Determination (FD)."
A decision, already pushed back a few times, had been expected on or before Dec. 15.
"The Office of the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs needs this extension to allow for review of the recommended decisions," said Fleming in the letter informing petitioners.
Joe O'Campo and Sonia Johnston are listed as Petitioner No. 84B, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, while Anthony Rivera is Petitioner No. 84A, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. The federal government is evaluating both petitions simultaneously.
The divided groups have sought federal recognition for nearly three decades.
If the Juaneños become a tribe in the eyes of the federal government, the group will be recognized as a sovereign nation.
Read more in the OCREGISTER
The new deadline for the decision by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, called final determination, is now on or before Feb. 14
In the letter dated Wednesday, Director Lee Fleming, says that "the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk has granted a 60-day extension for the Final Determination (FD)."
A decision, already pushed back a few times, had been expected on or before Dec. 15.
"The Office of the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs needs this extension to allow for review of the recommended decisions," said Fleming in the letter informing petitioners.
Joe O'Campo and Sonia Johnston are listed as Petitioner No. 84B, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, while Anthony Rivera is Petitioner No. 84A, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. The federal government is evaluating both petitions simultaneously.
The divided groups have sought federal recognition for nearly three decades.
If the Juaneños become a tribe in the eyes of the federal government, the group will be recognized as a sovereign nation.
Read more in the OCREGISTER
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Harry Reid Fails in Attempt to Get Internet Gaming into Tax Deal
Our friends at HOT AIR are reporting that Harry Reid was trying to sneak an online gaming proposal into President Obama's tax deal.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.
Already, the online poker proposal has exposed the Nevada Democrat to charges of flip-flopping on a controversial issue, as well as using his Senate leadership position to repay big casino interests that helped him win reelection in a hard-fought campaign against Republican Sharron Angle last month.
The National Indian Gaming Association is opposing Reid’s effort to insert the online poker language in any tax cut bill, said an official with the group, Jason Giles. He asserted it gives an advantage to Las Vegas-based gambling operators while discriminating against tribal operators. OP: Tribal Gaming Nations want to discriminate all by themselves.
BUT, late in the day, it looks like Harry couldn't pull it off:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Las Vegas Sun after a press conference this afternoon that despite a flurry of last-minute lobbying, he would not be adding legalization of online poker to his list of objectives during the lame duck.
“We’re still working on that, we’re not able to,” Reid said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.
Already, the online poker proposal has exposed the Nevada Democrat to charges of flip-flopping on a controversial issue, as well as using his Senate leadership position to repay big casino interests that helped him win reelection in a hard-fought campaign against Republican Sharron Angle last month.
The National Indian Gaming Association is opposing Reid’s effort to insert the online poker language in any tax cut bill, said an official with the group, Jason Giles. He asserted it gives an advantage to Las Vegas-based gambling operators while discriminating against tribal operators. OP: Tribal Gaming Nations want to discriminate all by themselves.
BUT, late in the day, it looks like Harry couldn't pull it off:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Las Vegas Sun after a press conference this afternoon that despite a flurry of last-minute lobbying, he would not be adding legalization of online poker to his list of objectives during the lame duck.
“We’re still working on that, we’re not able to,” Reid said.
Glenda Nelson Enterprise Rancheria Civil Rights Violator, Should She Pass a White House Background Check?
We've written on OP Blog's Hall of Shame Inductee Glenda Nelson before HERE and HERE She is a nominee to be the western representative to President Obama's upcoming Tribal Nations Conference. Shouldn't stripping rightful members from their voting rights and tribal membership just prior to being recalled be enough to disqualify her in her background check. Do we want someone like this close to the President? Her actions would relate to EIGHT MILLION CALIFORNIANS being stripped of their voting rights.
Currently Chairwoman of the Enterprise Rancheria tribe, Glenda Nelson was at the forefront of the disenrollment of 72 of her fellow tribal members. Those same 72, subsequently disenrolled members, had signed a recall petition against Nelson and four other members of the Enterprise Rancheria Tribal Council who were guilty of taking multiple cash distributions from the tribe's Human Services Fund for the needy.
Ironically, Glenda Nelson was the tribe's Treasurer in September 2003 when this occurred. She successfully suspended the 72 members, pending disenrollment, in a manner timely to prevent those members from voting in the recall election scheduled to be held seven days later.
Nelson orchestrated the systematic violation of the 72 member's civil rights and has never made any attempt to rectify the injustice that occurred as a result of her actions.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, in spite of the violations of tribal law committed, turned the other cheek on the acts committed by Enterprise Rancheria's tribal government.
How would eliminating 25% of the vote affect tribal elections?
Here's how: In the most recent Enterprise Rancheria tribal elections in 2003, prior to the disenrollments in Sept. 2003, there were only 115 total votes cast from the 215 voting members. Needless to say the 72 members who were suspended pending disenrollment made up two thirds of that 115 total votes cast. That's why the 72 were suspended. To stop the recall vote that was due just a week later. Once the 72 were suspended the recall election was over as there was no way it could proceed.
Imagine if Democrats could get 2/3 of the Republican Senator eliminated? So, it's only 180 Americans killed on 9/11 at the Pentagon would say the 1.2 Billion population Chinese. It has to be relative. Would Al Gore have been President if he could have eliminated 250,000 Republican votes in FL. Well that's RELATIVE to what Glenda Nelson did to save herself from recall.
Currently Chairwoman of the Enterprise Rancheria tribe, Glenda Nelson was at the forefront of the disenrollment of 72 of her fellow tribal members. Those same 72, subsequently disenrolled members, had signed a recall petition against Nelson and four other members of the Enterprise Rancheria Tribal Council who were guilty of taking multiple cash distributions from the tribe's Human Services Fund for the needy.
Ironically, Glenda Nelson was the tribe's Treasurer in September 2003 when this occurred. She successfully suspended the 72 members, pending disenrollment, in a manner timely to prevent those members from voting in the recall election scheduled to be held seven days later.
Nelson orchestrated the systematic violation of the 72 member's civil rights and has never made any attempt to rectify the injustice that occurred as a result of her actions.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, in spite of the violations of tribal law committed, turned the other cheek on the acts committed by Enterprise Rancheria's tribal government.
How would eliminating 25% of the vote affect tribal elections?
Here's how: In the most recent Enterprise Rancheria tribal elections in 2003, prior to the disenrollments in Sept. 2003, there were only 115 total votes cast from the 215 voting members. Needless to say the 72 members who were suspended pending disenrollment made up two thirds of that 115 total votes cast. That's why the 72 were suspended. To stop the recall vote that was due just a week later. Once the 72 were suspended the recall election was over as there was no way it could proceed.
Imagine if Democrats could get 2/3 of the Republican Senator eliminated? So, it's only 180 Americans killed on 9/11 at the Pentagon would say the 1.2 Billion population Chinese. It has to be relative. Would Al Gore have been President if he could have eliminated 250,000 Republican votes in FL. Well that's RELATIVE to what Glenda Nelson did to save herself from recall.
Yes, Tribal Members Who Live Off the Reservation SHOULD be Paying State Tax
We did, when our last full year of per capita paid in 2006 from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians was $268,000, we paid over $20,000 in state income taxes. And that was with a bundle of deductions from mortgage interest payments.
The Pechanga Tribe has a line of Mailboxes and PO Boxes which are currently undergoing re-allocations.
Capitol Weekly has a good story up on The TAX MAN
Indians can avoid paying taxes on some income, but that exemption doesn’t apply to money generated by Internet poker or other endeavors involving off-reservation computer servers — unless those businesses also satisfy those rules.
The FTB sends out between 500 and 600 of these letters a year, according to spokesman Dan Tahara. He added that the letters don’t represent a new crackdown, nor are they the result of a court case the FTB won earlier this year against a southern California gaming tribe.
In fact, he said, its business as usual.
“This is actually nothing new,” Tahara said. “This is part of an ongoing effort.”
Tribal income is exempt from taxation — but only under very specific and often misunderstood circumstances. These rules, meanwhile, could have implications for how new gaming enterprises are structured in the future, especially if tribes are able to gain a large stake in online poker franchises in California.
The FTB also puts out a booklet, “Taxable Income of Native Americans,” that details what kinds of income are exempt from state taxes. Another brochure available on the agency’s website notes that “many people are under the impression that California Indians do not pay income tax.”
In order to exempt payments from state income taxes, the money has to come from a “tribal enterprise” conducted by a federally recognized tribe. It has to be generated on a reservation, and the tribal member has to be a member of that tribe living on the same reservation where it was generated
The Pechanga Tribe has a line of Mailboxes and PO Boxes which are currently undergoing re-allocations.
Capitol Weekly has a good story up on The TAX MAN
Indians can avoid paying taxes on some income, but that exemption doesn’t apply to money generated by Internet poker or other endeavors involving off-reservation computer servers — unless those businesses also satisfy those rules.
The FTB sends out between 500 and 600 of these letters a year, according to spokesman Dan Tahara. He added that the letters don’t represent a new crackdown, nor are they the result of a court case the FTB won earlier this year against a southern California gaming tribe.
In fact, he said, its business as usual.
“This is actually nothing new,” Tahara said. “This is part of an ongoing effort.”
Tribal income is exempt from taxation — but only under very specific and often misunderstood circumstances. These rules, meanwhile, could have implications for how new gaming enterprises are structured in the future, especially if tribes are able to gain a large stake in online poker franchises in California.
The FTB also puts out a booklet, “Taxable Income of Native Americans,” that details what kinds of income are exempt from state taxes. Another brochure available on the agency’s website notes that “many people are under the impression that California Indians do not pay income tax.”
In order to exempt payments from state income taxes, the money has to come from a “tribal enterprise” conducted by a federally recognized tribe. It has to be generated on a reservation, and the tribal member has to be a member of that tribe living on the same reservation where it was generated
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
President Obama to Host Tribal Nations Conference; Tribes with Human Rights Violations To Attend.
Below is the tentative schedule for the Tribal Nations Conference hosted by President Barack Obama. One elected tribal leader from each federally recognized tribe is invited to attend the December 16th event. Additionally, there is a smaller meeting on December 15th where the President will meet with one tribal leader from each of the 12 BIA Regions. Tribes from the respective regions have been asked to nominate a tribal leader to represent their region. We understand that leaders from both Redding Rancheria and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, who have violated the human and civil rights of their citizens and reservation allottees.
It is a shame that tribal leaders who have violated the human and civil rights of their own citizens and many others have been invited to attend. It would be an even greater injustice if a tribal leader responsible for such egregious acts is actually selected by the White House to participate in the December 15th meeting with the President. They should be relegated to the 'back bench' and given the courtesy due, say, white leaders of South Africa from pre 1990's.
Tentative schedule for White House Tribal Nations Conference
Monday, December 6, 2010
President Barack Obama will host the second White House Tribal Nations Conference on Thursday, December 16.
The event will take place at the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. The tentative schedule follows:
8:30 AM - 9:30 AM -- Opening Session (Open to Press)
9:45 AM -12:15 PM -- Break Out Sessions (Closed Press)
12:15 PM - 1:45 PM -- Lunch
1:45 PM - 3:30 PM -- Closing Session (Open to Press)
THOUSANDS of tribal citizens and others have had their civil and human rights violated by tribal people from: Redding, Picayune Rancheria, Enterprise, Guidiville, Robinson Rancheria, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Who'd have thought that the UN Declaration on Indiginous Human Right would reflect so poorly on our OWN Indigenous Leaders.
It is a shame that tribal leaders who have violated the human and civil rights of their own citizens and many others have been invited to attend. It would be an even greater injustice if a tribal leader responsible for such egregious acts is actually selected by the White House to participate in the December 15th meeting with the President. They should be relegated to the 'back bench' and given the courtesy due, say, white leaders of South Africa from pre 1990's.
Tentative schedule for White House Tribal Nations Conference
Monday, December 6, 2010
President Barack Obama will host the second White House Tribal Nations Conference on Thursday, December 16.
The event will take place at the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. The tentative schedule follows:
8:30 AM - 9:30 AM -- Opening Session (Open to Press)
9:45 AM -12:15 PM -- Break Out Sessions (Closed Press)
12:15 PM - 1:45 PM -- Lunch
1:45 PM - 3:30 PM -- Closing Session (Open to Press)
THOUSANDS of tribal citizens and others have had their civil and human rights violated by tribal people from: Redding, Picayune Rancheria, Enterprise, Guidiville, Robinson Rancheria, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Who'd have thought that the UN Declaration on Indiginous Human Right would reflect so poorly on our OWN Indigenous Leaders.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Picayune Rancheria Disenrollment: 50% of Tribe Terminated, Lives Destroyed; Carole Goldberg Said, "overblown". Tell that to 600 Terminated Picayune People, Carole Goldberg
Since the Office of the President of the United States checked our blog today looking for posts on Carole Goldberg, I thought it an opportune time to bring the Picayune Rancheria Disenrollment story to the front.
Mary Martinez sat on the grinding rocks of her ancestors - giant boulders with holes used for thousands of years to crush acorns.
"This is where my grandmother used to sit, pounding acorns to make flour in the old ways," she said, closing her eyes to let the memories seep in. "I ground the flour, too, like my grandmother's mother and her mother before her.
"It's what you do as an Indian. I am a Chukchansi Indian," she said.
She is - and she isn't.
The 77-year-old Martinez has been kicked out of the Picayune Chukchansi tribe in the tiny Madera County town of Coarsegold - the tribe where she was vice chairwoman just two years ago, the tribe that is full of her cousins.
The tribal council threw her out last year, just as it has tossed out almost half its membership that in 2000 was 1,500 strong. It's the biggest disenrollment of any tribe in California, observers say.
The council explains it as a readjustment of records to more accurately reflect who deserves to be a Picayune Chukchansi and an official member of the tribe.
"Each tribe, under sovereignty, has the right to set its own membership, and that may be difficult at times, but it is necessary," said Chanel Wright, a spokeswoman for the tribe. "It's about doing what's best for the tribe."
But Martinez and the 600 other outcasts say it's all about greed. They blame the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino, a gigantic building of neon, slot machines and card tables that for five years has reeled in millions of dollars for those lucky enough to call themselves tribal members.
"They kicked me to the curb so they could keep more money for themselves," Martinez said, tearing up as she visited the historic grinding rock, used by local Indians for millennia, near the tribe's rancheria. "Our ancestors would roll over in their graves if they knew."
Carole Goldberg, chair of the UCLA Native Nations Law & Policy Center, called complaints over disenrollment overblown.
OP: OVERBLOWN? Elders health care ended? Children's educational access denied? Heritage destroyed? Income taken away? Access to Federal programs refused? Voting rights stripped? OVERBLOWN?
"Some of the human drama is being amplified," OP: On the contrary, Carole, it's not amplified ENOUGH. she said. "The tribes concede their sovereign authority if they talk to the non-Indian world, so they don't say much, which just leaves opponents to do much of the talking.
"But the reality is that the new money has made a difference in immeasurable ways." OP: Yes, let's measure: the money has been able to buy politicians, secure lobbyists to keep small tribes from gaining casinos, kept newspapers from writing negative stories so as not to lose ad revenue, camouflauged tribe's dirty deeds with small donations to local charities.
Read more: SF Chronicle
Bryan Galt, former Picayune Enrollment Chair Responds
Mary Martinez sat on the grinding rocks of her ancestors - giant boulders with holes used for thousands of years to crush acorns.
"This is where my grandmother used to sit, pounding acorns to make flour in the old ways," she said, closing her eyes to let the memories seep in. "I ground the flour, too, like my grandmother's mother and her mother before her.
"It's what you do as an Indian. I am a Chukchansi Indian," she said.
She is - and she isn't.
The 77-year-old Martinez has been kicked out of the Picayune Chukchansi tribe in the tiny Madera County town of Coarsegold - the tribe where she was vice chairwoman just two years ago, the tribe that is full of her cousins.
The tribal council threw her out last year, just as it has tossed out almost half its membership that in 2000 was 1,500 strong. It's the biggest disenrollment of any tribe in California, observers say.
The council explains it as a readjustment of records to more accurately reflect who deserves to be a Picayune Chukchansi and an official member of the tribe.
"Each tribe, under sovereignty, has the right to set its own membership, and that may be difficult at times, but it is necessary," said Chanel Wright, a spokeswoman for the tribe. "It's about doing what's best for the tribe."
But Martinez and the 600 other outcasts say it's all about greed. They blame the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino, a gigantic building of neon, slot machines and card tables that for five years has reeled in millions of dollars for those lucky enough to call themselves tribal members.
"They kicked me to the curb so they could keep more money for themselves," Martinez said, tearing up as she visited the historic grinding rock, used by local Indians for millennia, near the tribe's rancheria. "Our ancestors would roll over in their graves if they knew."
Carole Goldberg, chair of the UCLA Native Nations Law & Policy Center, called complaints over disenrollment overblown.
UCLA Law Prof.
Carole Goldberg
Carole Goldberg"Some of the human drama is being amplified," OP: On the contrary, Carole, it's not amplified ENOUGH. she said. "The tribes concede their sovereign authority if they talk to the non-Indian world, so they don't say much, which just leaves opponents to do much of the talking.
"But the reality is that the new money has made a difference in immeasurable ways." OP: Yes, let's measure: the money has been able to buy politicians, secure lobbyists to keep small tribes from gaining casinos, kept newspapers from writing negative stories so as not to lose ad revenue, camouflauged tribe's dirty deeds with small donations to local charities.
Read more: SF Chronicle
Bryan Galt, former Picayune Enrollment Chair Responds
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Focus on Pechanga: When a bad neighbor does Some good things. Do the Democrats Tacitly Approve?
In this update of a story we wrote about a couple of years ago..It’s been a decade since Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro asked the People of California to help Native Americans in their quest for self-reliance. I believe that most people took self-reliance to mean that Native Americans would help take care of their own people with the proceeds of Indian Gambling. This is the messaging of every public relations campaign during every California referendum on Indian Gaming, Each time the leaders of Pechanga were the face of the California Native community. Behind the scenes, however plans were already being made to strip families of their inherent rights as Temecula people and long-standing members to share in the fruits of gaming.
Unfortunately, then, self-reliance to Pechanga means keeping rightful people from joining the band and removing people via a process benignly called "disenrollment" who don’t think the way the leadership wants them to think, so there will be no dissent among the membership. The Council’s policy is cash your check and shut the hell up. Democrats, think what would happen if the Republicans could keep 25% of you from voting for your choice of leadership. Do you think your choice would win? Republicans, what would you think if the Democrats or even a civil rights group like the NAACP accepted readily this type of behavior?
Pechanga’s Constitution and Bylaws provides for OPEN ENROLLMENT each January, yet in 1997 the band approved a petition, which called for a moratorium on member enrollment so that the tribe can get caught up with the applications. There are 10 members on that committee, how long could it take to catch up? The will of the people was the rule of law in an enrollment matter, upheld by the tribal council. There has been no "catching up", in fact people who have a right to be in their tribe, just as their cousins are have been kept out for two decades, a paper shuffle that people like Frances Miranda kept going so they couldn't be on their land as members.
When the people passed a valid petition to halt all disenrollments in 2005, the tribal council maintained that the petition couldn’t be enforced, because the general council had no authority in enrollment matters. When in fact, Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro knew full well that the general membership of the tribe has the final word. Let’s get this right, the general council says the people could keep people OUT, but they can’t keep people IN?
So, we have the Pechanga Tribal Council acting in a shameful manner by eliminating 25% of their citizenry. They stripped this group of their status as Native Americans, and grabbed their share of per capita payments to grow their own. Many people don't understand per capita, but they do/should understand that if we get rid of 135 people, making $17,000 per month, it adds up to $2.3 Million per month, they can split between the remaining people. They keep rightful members from their place at Pechanga via disenrollment and moratorium and abused the elders and children of two families, terminating their cultural heritage. With the subsequent disenrollment of the Hunter family, there is an additional $2.1 million to divvy up. This is in per capita only, it doesn't include the college scholarship which could easily be worth $25,000 per year.
In direct contradiction to these reprehensible actions, Pechanga donates to groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs, The Temecula Valley School District, and other organizations, which gladly take generous donations from the tribal government. Of course, remember now that Pechanga had an additional $5.3 million to share PER MONTH. A yearly donation of $25k here and there wouldn't make a dent in that.
Unfortunately, then, self-reliance to Pechanga means keeping rightful people from joining the band and removing people via a process benignly called "disenrollment" who don’t think the way the leadership wants them to think, so there will be no dissent among the membership. The Council’s policy is cash your check and shut the hell up. Democrats, think what would happen if the Republicans could keep 25% of you from voting for your choice of leadership. Do you think your choice would win? Republicans, what would you think if the Democrats or even a civil rights group like the NAACP accepted readily this type of behavior?
Pechanga’s Constitution and Bylaws provides for OPEN ENROLLMENT each January, yet in 1997 the band approved a petition, which called for a moratorium on member enrollment so that the tribe can get caught up with the applications. There are 10 members on that committee, how long could it take to catch up? The will of the people was the rule of law in an enrollment matter, upheld by the tribal council. There has been no "catching up", in fact people who have a right to be in their tribe, just as their cousins are have been kept out for two decades, a paper shuffle that people like Frances Miranda kept going so they couldn't be on their land as members.
When the people passed a valid petition to halt all disenrollments in 2005, the tribal council maintained that the petition couldn’t be enforced, because the general council had no authority in enrollment matters. When in fact, Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro knew full well that the general membership of the tribe has the final word. Let’s get this right, the general council says the people could keep people OUT, but they can’t keep people IN?
So, we have the Pechanga Tribal Council acting in a shameful manner by eliminating 25% of their citizenry. They stripped this group of their status as Native Americans, and grabbed their share of per capita payments to grow their own. Many people don't understand per capita, but they do/should understand that if we get rid of 135 people, making $17,000 per month, it adds up to $2.3 Million per month, they can split between the remaining people. They keep rightful members from their place at Pechanga via disenrollment and moratorium and abused the elders and children of two families, terminating their cultural heritage. With the subsequent disenrollment of the Hunter family, there is an additional $2.1 million to divvy up. This is in per capita only, it doesn't include the college scholarship which could easily be worth $25,000 per year.
In direct contradiction to these reprehensible actions, Pechanga donates to groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs, The Temecula Valley School District, and other organizations, which gladly take generous donations from the tribal government. Of course, remember now that Pechanga had an additional $5.3 million to share PER MONTH. A yearly donation of $25k here and there wouldn't make a dent in that.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Pechanga People "Disenrolled" en Masse a Historical First
Time to bring this post forward please read and check the link for more.
UPDATE: Rob at Blue Corn Comics thinks that this article below is just Pechanga bashing. Well that may be true, but why are there no articles BASHING the other three tribes. Isn't it proper and just to bash a tribe that needs bashing and wouldn't a tribe that has treated its people so badly, be bashed?
Mark Cooper has an extensive article that details the shameful actions of Pechanga. Purging the tribe of longtime members.
Please read the whole thing
Tribal Flush: Pechanga People "Disenrolled" en Masse
On the eve of what could be the largest gambling expansion in U.S. history, a tale of power, betrayal and lost Indian heritage
By MARC COOPER
Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 12:00 pm Link to the rest of the story
John Gomez Jr. parks his silver family van in the back row of one more anonymous strip mall off California’s Highway 79, an hour and a half southeast of Los Angeles, on a windswept ridge overlooking the Temecula Valley.
Gomez, his dark hair barely betraying a sprinkling of gray at his temples, steps out of the van and walks away from the mall, to a barren dirt lot marked off with adobe walls.“This is where Pablo is buried,” he says as we peer over the locked iron gate.
Pablo is Pablo Apis, the celebrated 19th-century “headman,” or chief, of the Temecula/Pechanga Indians, who was given more than 2,000 acres of land in exchange for his work at the Mission San Luis Rey. Gomez, who is a direct descendant of Chief Apis, jiggles the lock on the gate. He has no key.“This is where a lot of our people were buried,” Gomez continues, “including those killed in the famous Temecula Massacre.” He’s referring to the killing of several dozen Indians by Californio militias in the closing days of 1846. Apis survived and, indeed, the 1875 treaty between the Temecula tribe and the U.S. government, though never ratified, was signed at the chief’s village adobe home.
Today, on a corner of Apis’ original land grant, a few minutes down the road from the desolate burial ground, towers the $350 million Pechanga Resort & Casino, the glittering 14-story pleasure dome so familiar to Southern Californians from the promotional and political-advocacy commercials in near-constant rotation on local television stations. With 522 rooms, 185,000 square feet of casino floor, 2,000 slot machines, more than 150 table games and seven restaurants, along with Vegas-class showrooms, nightclubs and comedy lounges, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, as the tribe is now known, runs the largest and perhaps most profitable of California’s nearly 60 Indian casinos.
And now, under terms of a deal negotiated by Governor Schwarzenegger, ratified earlier this year by the Democratic-led state legislature and set to go before voters in the February 5 primary election, the Pechanga and three other Southern California tribes may soon triple their battery of slot machines, allowing each of the four Indian groups to operate twice as many slots as any Vegas casino. If the referendums go through, the four tribes — Morongo, Agua Caliente, Sycuan and Pechanga — will be responsible for the largest expansion of gambling in recent U.S. history.
But it’s Gomez’s tribe no more. At least as far as the tribal leadership is concerned. Gomez and 135 adult members of his extended family (and 75 or more children) have been purged from formal Pechanga membership; they have been “disenrolled.”
They were accused of no crime, no misbehavior, no wrongdoing, no disloyalty. But a series of tribal kangaroo-court hearings, bereft of even the pretense of due process, ruled that one of the family’s deceased elders was not an authentic tribe member and, therefore, not withstanding their years of service to the tribe, they were all to be banned.
What it’s come to goes beyond tribal pride. As a result of the disenrollment, many in the Gomez family, which accounts for some 10 percent of the total Pechanga tribe’s membership, have lost their federal standing and benefits as American Indians. Some have lost their jobs at the resort. All of the adults, including Gomez, lost the generous per capita monthly payout, derived from casino profits, that was given to each adult of the tribe. When the Gomez family’s expulsion was finalized in 2004, that was about $15,000 per month. Currently, for those who remain members of the tribe, the figure has risen to about $40,000 per month.
The sharp increase is due in part to a second wave of purges, finalized last year, which disenrolled another extended family, this one descended from Paulina Hunter and representing yet another 10 percent of the tribe. That second purge went ahead despite a tribe-commissioned expert probe that concluded that Hunter was, in fact, a Pechanga.
Simply put: The fewer the tribal members, the bigger the payout.
Some of the elderly disenrollees found themselves cut off from tribal clinics they helped to build. Some of the younger ones lost their education subsidies. What all the disenrollees have in common is not only the sudden loss of significant income but erasure of their collective cultural history and identity.
“Yes, we lost homes and cars. Some went into bankruptcy,” Gomez says. “But mostly I was saddened for my family and for Indian country in general. It’s not just your money they’re taking away but also your heritage and your future.”
With Indian gaming revenues now near the $30 billion mark nationally, disenrollment has rocked and divided Indian reservations from coast to coast.
“Gaming has brought in the dominant culture’s disease of greed,’’ Marty Firerider of the California American Indian Movement told the Indian Country Today newspaper.
Gomez first got into trouble with his Pechanga tribe in 2002, when, as a trusted legal adviser, he was elected to the tribal-enrollment committee, along with a cousin and a member of the Paulina Hunter family. These were sensitive positions. After the tribe won its first minor gambling concession in 1996, and after California voters approved major Indian gaming rights four years later, it was only natural that there would be an increase in those suddenly claiming membership.
“As soon as we were elected, we found that the committee was doing all kinds of strange things,” Gomez says. “On the one hand they weren’t adhering to an enrollment moratorium and on the other they weren’t properly processing the minor children of those already enrolled.”
Gomez and his new allies began an investigation.
The boom quickly dropped on them. Within weeks a letter emerged from a group called Concerned Pechanga People, a small faction closely allied with the tribal leadership and its chair, Mark Macarro, which accused Gomez and his family of not being legitimate Pechanga. By the end of the year, Gomez’s extended family were notified of pending disenrollment. During an internal process that lasted more than a year and a half, Gomez put together binders of documentation proving — at least to virtually every outside observer who has reviewed them — his Pechanga ancestry.
But the tribal leadership, in closed-door sessions that adhered to no formal due process or rules of evidence, held to its position that one key elder in Gomez’s lineage — Manuela Miranda — had left the traditional village after her marriage and, therefore, her descendants weren’t really Pechanga. The claim, according to several experts, is prima facie absurd, as the history of American Indians is based on such dispersion and diaspora.
Read MORE at the link above
UPDATE: Rob at Blue Corn Comics thinks that this article below is just Pechanga bashing. Well that may be true, but why are there no articles BASHING the other three tribes. Isn't it proper and just to bash a tribe that needs bashing and wouldn't a tribe that has treated its people so badly, be bashed?
Mark Cooper has an extensive article that details the shameful actions of Pechanga. Purging the tribe of longtime members.
Please read the whole thing
Tribal Flush: Pechanga People "Disenrolled" en Masse
On the eve of what could be the largest gambling expansion in U.S. history, a tale of power, betrayal and lost Indian heritage
By MARC COOPER
Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 12:00 pm Link to the rest of the story
John Gomez Jr. parks his silver family van in the back row of one more anonymous strip mall off California’s Highway 79, an hour and a half southeast of Los Angeles, on a windswept ridge overlooking the Temecula Valley.
Gomez, his dark hair barely betraying a sprinkling of gray at his temples, steps out of the van and walks away from the mall, to a barren dirt lot marked off with adobe walls.“This is where Pablo is buried,” he says as we peer over the locked iron gate.
Pablo is Pablo Apis, the celebrated 19th-century “headman,” or chief, of the Temecula/Pechanga Indians, who was given more than 2,000 acres of land in exchange for his work at the Mission San Luis Rey. Gomez, who is a direct descendant of Chief Apis, jiggles the lock on the gate. He has no key.“This is where a lot of our people were buried,” Gomez continues, “including those killed in the famous Temecula Massacre.” He’s referring to the killing of several dozen Indians by Californio militias in the closing days of 1846. Apis survived and, indeed, the 1875 treaty between the Temecula tribe and the U.S. government, though never ratified, was signed at the chief’s village adobe home.
Today, on a corner of Apis’ original land grant, a few minutes down the road from the desolate burial ground, towers the $350 million Pechanga Resort & Casino, the glittering 14-story pleasure dome so familiar to Southern Californians from the promotional and political-advocacy commercials in near-constant rotation on local television stations. With 522 rooms, 185,000 square feet of casino floor, 2,000 slot machines, more than 150 table games and seven restaurants, along with Vegas-class showrooms, nightclubs and comedy lounges, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, as the tribe is now known, runs the largest and perhaps most profitable of California’s nearly 60 Indian casinos.
And now, under terms of a deal negotiated by Governor Schwarzenegger, ratified earlier this year by the Democratic-led state legislature and set to go before voters in the February 5 primary election, the Pechanga and three other Southern California tribes may soon triple their battery of slot machines, allowing each of the four Indian groups to operate twice as many slots as any Vegas casino. If the referendums go through, the four tribes — Morongo, Agua Caliente, Sycuan and Pechanga — will be responsible for the largest expansion of gambling in recent U.S. history.
But it’s Gomez’s tribe no more. At least as far as the tribal leadership is concerned. Gomez and 135 adult members of his extended family (and 75 or more children) have been purged from formal Pechanga membership; they have been “disenrolled.”
They were accused of no crime, no misbehavior, no wrongdoing, no disloyalty. But a series of tribal kangaroo-court hearings, bereft of even the pretense of due process, ruled that one of the family’s deceased elders was not an authentic tribe member and, therefore, not withstanding their years of service to the tribe, they were all to be banned.
What it’s come to goes beyond tribal pride. As a result of the disenrollment, many in the Gomez family, which accounts for some 10 percent of the total Pechanga tribe’s membership, have lost their federal standing and benefits as American Indians. Some have lost their jobs at the resort. All of the adults, including Gomez, lost the generous per capita monthly payout, derived from casino profits, that was given to each adult of the tribe. When the Gomez family’s expulsion was finalized in 2004, that was about $15,000 per month. Currently, for those who remain members of the tribe, the figure has risen to about $40,000 per month.
The sharp increase is due in part to a second wave of purges, finalized last year, which disenrolled another extended family, this one descended from Paulina Hunter and representing yet another 10 percent of the tribe. That second purge went ahead despite a tribe-commissioned expert probe that concluded that Hunter was, in fact, a Pechanga.
Simply put: The fewer the tribal members, the bigger the payout.
Some of the elderly disenrollees found themselves cut off from tribal clinics they helped to build. Some of the younger ones lost their education subsidies. What all the disenrollees have in common is not only the sudden loss of significant income but erasure of their collective cultural history and identity.
“Yes, we lost homes and cars. Some went into bankruptcy,” Gomez says. “But mostly I was saddened for my family and for Indian country in general. It’s not just your money they’re taking away but also your heritage and your future.”
With Indian gaming revenues now near the $30 billion mark nationally, disenrollment has rocked and divided Indian reservations from coast to coast.
“Gaming has brought in the dominant culture’s disease of greed,’’ Marty Firerider of the California American Indian Movement told the Indian Country Today newspaper.
Gomez first got into trouble with his Pechanga tribe in 2002, when, as a trusted legal adviser, he was elected to the tribal-enrollment committee, along with a cousin and a member of the Paulina Hunter family. These were sensitive positions. After the tribe won its first minor gambling concession in 1996, and after California voters approved major Indian gaming rights four years later, it was only natural that there would be an increase in those suddenly claiming membership.
“As soon as we were elected, we found that the committee was doing all kinds of strange things,” Gomez says. “On the one hand they weren’t adhering to an enrollment moratorium and on the other they weren’t properly processing the minor children of those already enrolled.”
Gomez and his new allies began an investigation.
The boom quickly dropped on them. Within weeks a letter emerged from a group called Concerned Pechanga People, a small faction closely allied with the tribal leadership and its chair, Mark Macarro, which accused Gomez and his family of not being legitimate Pechanga. By the end of the year, Gomez’s extended family were notified of pending disenrollment. During an internal process that lasted more than a year and a half, Gomez put together binders of documentation proving — at least to virtually every outside observer who has reviewed them — his Pechanga ancestry.
But the tribal leadership, in closed-door sessions that adhered to no formal due process or rules of evidence, held to its position that one key elder in Gomez’s lineage — Manuela Miranda — had left the traditional village after her marriage and, therefore, her descendants weren’t really Pechanga. The claim, according to several experts, is prima facie absurd, as the history of American Indians is based on such dispersion and diaspora.
Read MORE at the link above
How Pechanga's Enrollment Committee Members Frances Miranda, Ihrene Scearce and Ruth Masiel Irreparably Harmed HUNDREDS of Pechanga Citizens.
Hunter Cousin A'amokat raises some good points in our comment section that I though deserved a promotion to a full post. It has to do with getting a fair and impartial hearing from the Pechanga Enrollment Committee. Disenrollment of hundreds of Pechanga people by three despicable people. (AKA the 3rd Pechanga Massacre) Do you think that black South Africans got fair hearing from their white rulers under apartheid? Would Americans expect a fair and impartial hearing from Iran?
A'amokat: Article V of the Temecula Band's constitution and bylaws, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians,says:
"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE BAND TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, AND ORDINANCES OF THE TEMECULA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS; AND ALSO, TO UPHOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF EACH MEMBER WITHOUT MALICE OR PREJUDICE."
Irehne Scearce and Ruth Masiel are the sisters of Raymond Basquez Sr, who submitted a statement against our tribal membership, and they were closely related to at least ten other people who submitted and/or signed another letter that was against our tribal membership.
Francis Miranda was also closely related to a person who signed the letter against our membership and these three women were party to a challenge of our membership that was submitted against us before any evidence was even presented that would have warrented opening up an investigation against us.
I know I have posted this information about a million times and I have asked the following question just as many times.
How was allowing those three women to sit in judgement of us and to rule on our fate in our disenrollment case not malice or predjudice against us and how does it not violate the equal protection clause of the Band's constitution and bylaws under Article V?
We can document what I have stated by at least six letters that were sent to the enrollment committee and/or the tribal council asking for the recusal of those three women from participating in our disenrollment case but our request was ignored by both the committee and the council. How fair is that?
OP: Here is some pertinent information from a previous A'amokat post:
1. Applications that had the required number of signatures for approval (6) but were never processed. When confronted with this a committee member who was responsible for processing new applicants, a descendant of Candarlaria Nesecat Flores, replied, “I don’t care if it has 24 signatures on it, if I don’t think there is a bloodline, I’m not processing it.” OP: Frances Miranda was a descendent of Flores, and was on the enrollment committee.
2. Some 40 applications of children of enrolled tribal members were banded and set aside so they would not be processed because the committee members from the CPP faction of the tribe, who to that point had controlled the committee by having a majority, had no intention of enrolling these children. OP: Keeping children from their rightful place in the tribe. Their lineal descent was proven. This created a virtual moratorium on membership.
3. The new committee members found that there were families where one sibling was enrolled and another was not, even though both submitted identical applications at the same time.
4. Applications that were placed in the moratorium, even though the applications were submitted prior to the deadline, and the individuals had repeatedly contacted the committee to follow up on their status.
5. Refusal to sign enrollment applications or birth certificates for individuals who are members of families they don’t like
We keep working to get the story out front, the unethical tribal council of Pechanga hides behind the cloak of sovereignty. Would people stand up for Wal-Mart is they cut wages and cut all health coverage? NO, they'd exercise their moral outrage and quit shopping at Wal-Mart. Shouldn't the same be done at Pechanga, which has cut of rightful per capita payments, health care, educational assistance, the right to be buried with family at Pechanga cemetary...
A'amokat: Article V of the Temecula Band's constitution and bylaws, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians,says:
"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE BAND TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, AND ORDINANCES OF THE TEMECULA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS; AND ALSO, TO UPHOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF EACH MEMBER WITHOUT MALICE OR PREJUDICE."
Irehne Scearce and Ruth Masiel are the sisters of Raymond Basquez Sr, who submitted a statement against our tribal membership, and they were closely related to at least ten other people who submitted and/or signed another letter that was against our tribal membership.
Francis Miranda was also closely related to a person who signed the letter against our membership and these three women were party to a challenge of our membership that was submitted against us before any evidence was even presented that would have warrented opening up an investigation against us.
I know I have posted this information about a million times and I have asked the following question just as many times.
How was allowing those three women to sit in judgement of us and to rule on our fate in our disenrollment case not malice or predjudice against us and how does it not violate the equal protection clause of the Band's constitution and bylaws under Article V?
We can document what I have stated by at least six letters that were sent to the enrollment committee and/or the tribal council asking for the recusal of those three women from participating in our disenrollment case but our request was ignored by both the committee and the council. How fair is that?
OP: Here is some pertinent information from a previous A'amokat post:
1. Applications that had the required number of signatures for approval (6) but were never processed. When confronted with this a committee member who was responsible for processing new applicants, a descendant of Candarlaria Nesecat Flores, replied, “I don’t care if it has 24 signatures on it, if I don’t think there is a bloodline, I’m not processing it.” OP: Frances Miranda was a descendent of Flores, and was on the enrollment committee.
2. Some 40 applications of children of enrolled tribal members were banded and set aside so they would not be processed because the committee members from the CPP faction of the tribe, who to that point had controlled the committee by having a majority, had no intention of enrolling these children. OP: Keeping children from their rightful place in the tribe. Their lineal descent was proven. This created a virtual moratorium on membership.
3. The new committee members found that there were families where one sibling was enrolled and another was not, even though both submitted identical applications at the same time.
4. Applications that were placed in the moratorium, even though the applications were submitted prior to the deadline, and the individuals had repeatedly contacted the committee to follow up on their status.
5. Refusal to sign enrollment applications or birth certificates for individuals who are members of families they don’t like
We keep working to get the story out front, the unethical tribal council of Pechanga hides behind the cloak of sovereignty. Would people stand up for Wal-Mart is they cut wages and cut all health coverage? NO, they'd exercise their moral outrage and quit shopping at Wal-Mart. Shouldn't the same be done at Pechanga, which has cut of rightful per capita payments, health care, educational assistance, the right to be buried with family at Pechanga cemetary...
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Enjoy Biscotti with Your Coffee - A Family Business
If you enjoy your morning coffee, you'll enjoy it even more with homemade Biscotti. Shipped directly to your home or business. Take a look at a family business.
Thank you to our readers for checking out all of our family businesses on the sidebar to the right. There are no paid ads on this site.
Pechanga Disenrollment: The Video, See Macarro Lie/Obfuscate
This details the disenrollment of Pechanga members in 2006. My family, which was the second family to be terminated from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Please listen to THEIR expert speak. WE DID NOT HIRE Dr. Johnson, the foremost expert on California Indians PECHANGA DID. Why did they not believe their OWN expert? Because he didn't come to the conclusion they wanted.
SADLY, Lawrence Madariaga, Hunter Family Elder, has passed away. This happened because Frances Miranda, Ihrene Scearce and Ruth Masiel disregarded their experts report, and believe a CHILD MOLESTER instead.
SADLY, Lawrence Madariaga, Hunter Family Elder, has passed away. This happened because Frances Miranda, Ihrene Scearce and Ruth Masiel disregarded their experts report, and believe a CHILD MOLESTER instead.
Why is Sen. Dianne Feinstein Working For Tribes That Violate The Civil Rights of Their Membership?
UPDATE: Malcolm Maclaclan has more to the story at CAPITOL WEEKLY A portion of that:
It appears unlikely that either approach would pass before next year, leaving current urban casino efforts in limbo. In the meantime, anti-casino groups continue to fight the Point Molate project and another proposed casino, this one by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria. That tribe has been fighting heavy opposition to a proposed casino in Rohnert Park, a city of 41,000 located 50 miles north of San Francisco. That land has been taken into trust. On Oct. 1, the National Indian Gaming Commission granted the tribe clearance to build a Class II bingo style casino if they wanted; they need a state compact if they want to build a more lucrative, Class I slot machine-based facility.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has an editorial up in the Contra Costa Times
CALIFORNIA VOTERS settled the question of casino gaming back in 2000 -- or so it seemed. Proposition 1A authorized the governor to negotiate gambling pacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for "federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California."
The words "on Indian lands" are the key to Prop. 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands. Voters endorsed this bargain, approving Prop. 1A with 65 percent of the vote.
But today the spirit of this proposition could be violated by major casinos proposed around the state on lands that are not "Indian lands" -- some of which are more than 100 miles from tribal headquarters.
This is "reservation shopping," in which tribes from rural areas seek federal approval to acquire lands in trust in densely populated urban areas.
The goal: To put casinos where the most potential gamblers are -- even if it disregards the will of California voters
The most recent Propositions on Indian Gaming in California, promised us balanced budgets. That not only didn't happen, we are getting less money than before.
In her editorial Mrs. Feinstein willfully disregards what is happening with California's Indian country. Civil rights and human rights are being violated by tribes such as the Redding Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria (Fresno area) and The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula). What do they have in common? Their lobbyist IETAN. They are working with Sen. Feinstein to stop expansion of gaming by other tribes. Each of the aforementioned tribes have terminated a significant portion of their membership so they can steal those eliminated tribal members per capita checks. Original Pechanga's Blog has details that local news seems not to care about, though more truely, they want to protect their advertising revenue from gaming.
WHY are gaming tribes against smaller tribes gaining a casino? To control market share. Is Indian self reliance only good for those tribes that have gaming NOW? What about the 50 or so other tribes in CA that would benefit? Ask yourselves, WHO benefits more from Sen. Feinstein's legislation? Californians, or gaming tribes?
We will have more on the lobbyist IETAN shortly..
It appears unlikely that either approach would pass before next year, leaving current urban casino efforts in limbo. In the meantime, anti-casino groups continue to fight the Point Molate project and another proposed casino, this one by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria. That tribe has been fighting heavy opposition to a proposed casino in Rohnert Park, a city of 41,000 located 50 miles north of San Francisco. That land has been taken into trust. On Oct. 1, the National Indian Gaming Commission granted the tribe clearance to build a Class II bingo style casino if they wanted; they need a state compact if they want to build a more lucrative, Class I slot machine-based facility.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has an editorial up in the Contra Costa Times
CALIFORNIA VOTERS settled the question of casino gaming back in 2000 -- or so it seemed. Proposition 1A authorized the governor to negotiate gambling pacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for "federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California."
The words "on Indian lands" are the key to Prop. 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands. Voters endorsed this bargain, approving Prop. 1A with 65 percent of the vote.
But today the spirit of this proposition could be violated by major casinos proposed around the state on lands that are not "Indian lands" -- some of which are more than 100 miles from tribal headquarters.
This is "reservation shopping," in which tribes from rural areas seek federal approval to acquire lands in trust in densely populated urban areas.
The goal: To put casinos where the most potential gamblers are -- even if it disregards the will of California voters
The most recent Propositions on Indian Gaming in California, promised us balanced budgets. That not only didn't happen, we are getting less money than before.
In her editorial Mrs. Feinstein willfully disregards what is happening with California's Indian country. Civil rights and human rights are being violated by tribes such as the Redding Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria (Fresno area) and The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula). What do they have in common? Their lobbyist IETAN. They are working with Sen. Feinstein to stop expansion of gaming by other tribes. Each of the aforementioned tribes have terminated a significant portion of their membership so they can steal those eliminated tribal members per capita checks. Original Pechanga's Blog has details that local news seems not to care about, though more truely, they want to protect their advertising revenue from gaming.
WHY are gaming tribes against smaller tribes gaining a casino? To control market share. Is Indian self reliance only good for those tribes that have gaming NOW? What about the 50 or so other tribes in CA that would benefit? Ask yourselves, WHO benefits more from Sen. Feinstein's legislation? Californians, or gaming tribes?
We will have more on the lobbyist IETAN shortly..
Remember When Tribes Promised Gaming Would Be Good for ALL Tribes?
REMEMBER when the big tribes that Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein is trying to protect PROMISED Californians that Indian Gamings would benefit all tribes. It didn't work out that way. And now is looking even WORSE for small tribes as the larger tribes work to keep them from sharing in gaming success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)