People of California,
It's past time to boycott the Casino of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.
As a sovereign nation, they have the right to determine membership, they have the right to violate their tribal laws, they have the right to go against the will of the people, they have the right to impose an illegal moratorium, they have the right to put a white man on the council while saying that true Pechanga Blood is not "really Pechanga". They have the right to take away health care for their elders. They have the sovereign right to take away educational assistance to members. They ahve the sovereign right to take away over $250,000 in per capita payments so that remaining members can get over $300,000.
But, should the People of the State of California support an enterprise that would do that to their own people?
Should the Government of the State of California REWARD the Pechanga Tribe for violations of California citizens civil rights?
Should the people of California allow a rich tribe more riches when they are not taking care of their people as promised? Would you reward Hollywood Park with more races if they kicked out their longest employees? Or, their black employees?
Pechanga has treated their own citizens, well, the ones they couldn't control through fear, in a Nazi-like fashion. They have destroyed Indians with impunity. Why would people go there. Take your business elsewhere! There are plenty of Indian Casinos on reservations where they look after their people. Let Pechanga know WHY you are no longer going to go to their casino.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Reconciling MORAL OUTRAGE at Pechanga Tribe with Self Determination
Here is an excellent article by Sheryl Lightfoot about how to support sovereignty issues, while not supporting the actions when they are morally repugnant, such as Pechanga's disenrollment of 25% of their tribe in order to enrich the remaining members.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414629
In order to be sovereign nations, we must act like sovereign nations. But that does not mean that in order to support self-determination in principle, we need to agree with every decision of other sovereign nations. Nation-states in the international system do not always agree with the internal actions of other nation-states, yet they nearly always accept the principle of the equal sovereignty of all nation-states within the international system (with certain notable exceptions like the Iraq invasion or humanitarian interventions). When a nation-state, a group of nation-states, or private citizens of other nation-states disagree with the internal actions of another nation-state, there are a number of possible avenues of action.
First, sovereign nation-states can register a diplomatic complaint with the government of the offending nation-state. This is done all the time in the international system. The U.S. Department of State often drafts and delivers letters of protest to the diplomats and officials of other governments over areas of disagreement. Likewise, the executives of our indigenous nations have the right, if not the moral responsibility, to send letters and make phone calls of complaint directly to the executives of the Cherokee Nation, expressing their concern over the disenrollment decision. This can be done while supporting the inherent right of an indigenous nation to determine its own membership.
Another tactic which can be employed by other indigenous nations or the private citizens of other nations is the art of moral persuasion, or ''moral suasion,'' as it has also been termed. This involves a campaign of exposure and embarrassment. This tactic has most often been employed in international human rights campaigns, with the purpose being to expose the immoral government action in the media and open up international discussion in order to embarrass the target government into changing its policy to better conform to international norms. This was done in the early days of the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and has been used often by groups like Amnesty International to urge governments to stop human rights abuses.
My view is this:
As mentioned on other sites, tribal sovereignty is something that should be nurtured and cherished. Many now believe that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from Temecula, CA will be responsible for the quick erosion of sovereignty, that tribes have fought for for centuries.
The question was asked, "what could be done?". Frankly, economic sanctions of another nation, plus public embarrassment may be the only course of action that is effective. For instance, in South Africa, it was their SOVEREIGN RIGHT as a free nation to impose apartheid on their country. What recourse did civilized countries use to bring down this hateful policy? Economic sanctions and world ridicule of the policy. No trade, no travel, no money. Final result, end of apartheid and a welcome back to South Africa into the world community.
Similarly, citizens of the United States can impose their own economic sanctions on the Tribal Nation of Pechanga by boycotting their nation. Stop patronizing their casino, hotel, restaurants and their powwows. Let them know that we do not agree with their system of denying civil rights to their people and until they follow their own tribal law, citizens of our country will NOT support their nation, but will patronize their competitor nations.
Also, letting state and federal representatives know that we expect them not to support a nation that would treat its citizens this way, especially NOT to allow them increased monetary benefits by expanding their casino slot machines. Readers, there are 250 members of the band that were disenrolled and 500 people who are caught in Pechanga's illegal moratorium (illegal in that SOVEREIGN nation, against the sovereign nation of Pechanga's own constitution) Pechanga deserves no benefit from violations of their laws and against citizens of the United States.
Please ask your friends to read my blog and friends, please let me know your opinion.
Paulina Hunter's blog
Here is an excellent article by Sheryl Lightfoot about how to support sovereignty issues, while not supporting the actions when they are morally repugnant, such as Pechanga's disenrollment of 25% of their tribe in order to enrich the remaining members.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414629
In order to be sovereign nations, we must act like sovereign nations. But that does not mean that in order to support self-determination in principle, we need to agree with every decision of other sovereign nations. Nation-states in the international system do not always agree with the internal actions of other nation-states, yet they nearly always accept the principle of the equal sovereignty of all nation-states within the international system (with certain notable exceptions like the Iraq invasion or humanitarian interventions). When a nation-state, a group of nation-states, or private citizens of other nation-states disagree with the internal actions of another nation-state, there are a number of possible avenues of action.
First, sovereign nation-states can register a diplomatic complaint with the government of the offending nation-state. This is done all the time in the international system. The U.S. Department of State often drafts and delivers letters of protest to the diplomats and officials of other governments over areas of disagreement. Likewise, the executives of our indigenous nations have the right, if not the moral responsibility, to send letters and make phone calls of complaint directly to the executives of the Cherokee Nation, expressing their concern over the disenrollment decision. This can be done while supporting the inherent right of an indigenous nation to determine its own membership.
Another tactic which can be employed by other indigenous nations or the private citizens of other nations is the art of moral persuasion, or ''moral suasion,'' as it has also been termed. This involves a campaign of exposure and embarrassment. This tactic has most often been employed in international human rights campaigns, with the purpose being to expose the immoral government action in the media and open up international discussion in order to embarrass the target government into changing its policy to better conform to international norms. This was done in the early days of the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and has been used often by groups like Amnesty International to urge governments to stop human rights abuses.
My view is this:
As mentioned on other sites, tribal sovereignty is something that should be nurtured and cherished. Many now believe that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from Temecula, CA will be responsible for the quick erosion of sovereignty, that tribes have fought for for centuries.
The question was asked, "what could be done?". Frankly, economic sanctions of another nation, plus public embarrassment may be the only course of action that is effective. For instance, in South Africa, it was their SOVEREIGN RIGHT as a free nation to impose apartheid on their country. What recourse did civilized countries use to bring down this hateful policy? Economic sanctions and world ridicule of the policy. No trade, no travel, no money. Final result, end of apartheid and a welcome back to South Africa into the world community.
Similarly, citizens of the United States can impose their own economic sanctions on the Tribal Nation of Pechanga by boycotting their nation. Stop patronizing their casino, hotel, restaurants and their powwows. Let them know that we do not agree with their system of denying civil rights to their people and until they follow their own tribal law, citizens of our country will NOT support their nation, but will patronize their competitor nations.
Also, letting state and federal representatives know that we expect them not to support a nation that would treat its citizens this way, especially NOT to allow them increased monetary benefits by expanding their casino slot machines. Readers, there are 250 members of the band that were disenrolled and 500 people who are caught in Pechanga's illegal moratorium (illegal in that SOVEREIGN nation, against the sovereign nation of Pechanga's own constitution) Pechanga deserves no benefit from violations of their laws and against citizens of the United States.
Please ask your friends to read my blog and friends, please let me know your opinion.
Paulina Hunter's blog
Powerline Comments and Views: Pechanga Corruption & Sovereignty
The comments and views of the POWERLINE Blog continues to get notice. Over 1400 views in three weeks. Not to mention 4 days off because of a blowout.
Join in the discussion of Tribal Sovereignty and Pechanga abuse.
Powerline
And as always, Paulina Hunter's blog tells a great story. Please check that site out....
Join in the discussion of Tribal Sovereignty and Pechanga abuse.
Powerline
And as always, Paulina Hunter's blog tells a great story. Please check that site out....
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Governator Sell California Out to Pechanga, Gambling Casinos
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070528191604nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html
Schwarzenegger Sells California Out to Gambling Casinos
by Kathryn Bowen
Whoever coined the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" must have been talking about the 35 million Californians trusting that their governor and their elected officials are actually doing their job with respect to gambling casinos run by Indian tribes in our state.
"Bliss" is what Governor Schwarzenegger has been selling the public while he sells the State down the river by granting the largest expansion of gambling in history to 5 casino tribes. 5,000 MORE machines each, to tribes that are eliminating Indians from tribes.
In the wake of Californian's support of Prop 1A, former Governor, Gray Davis, negotiated gambling compacts with Indian Tribes. Millions of voters succumbed to a brilliant marketing campaign that casino tribes invested nearly $100 Million into, equal to a presidential election, to persuade voters to change our State constitution and direct gambling monopolies to Indian tribes. I was one of those voters.
Here's the bad news.
At this moment, your elected representatives in California are just about to vote on whether to grant 5 casino tribes, consisting of just 1,876 people, the ability to expand willy-nilly despite the impact on our communities, families, children and ultimately the financial future of California. Now, Pechanga has eliminated 250 members and are keeping at least 500 more off their rolls where they rightfully belong.
This is just the beginning; 67 additional tribes with gaming compacts are waiting in the wings and the Governor may not inform the public when renegotiations commence with these tribes.
The reality is the revenue promised for the state through gambling expansion will not materialize. The Governor and his advisors know this and should probably buy a new calculator because they know the expected income is neither measurable nor enforceable!
Thousands of emails, letters, phone calls and exhaustive testimony attempting to alert our elected officials of endless issues regarding jurisdiction, regulation, accounting and disastrous social costs have fallen on deaf ears.
The reason for the hearing loss? Could it be the massive unregulated tribal contributions flowing into political campaigns of the majority of our elected officials in our State Capitol?
In fact, tribes poured $429,600 into the campaigns of just fifteen assembly members who held an "impartial" hearing on problematic regulatory issues with the compacts and will be key in deciding their fate. How impartial can they really be when taking money from the same tribes that will benefit from their vote? By any definition, this is a profound conflict of interest.
Making matters worse, the Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS), the only federal regulatory leg left to oversee the integrity of the games and to collect the money, has been eliminated from the compacts.
What does this mean? These so-called compacts are really contracts that will cement a permanent partnership between the State of California and loosely regulated gambling casino tribes for the next 25-years, without the ability of the state to audit and collect the money or to ensure fair gaming for the patrons.
Casino tribes have kicked federal regulators off their land claiming sovereignty. What makes the state think its going to be any more successful especially given the fact there are simply not enough enforcement resources?
Moreover, Schwarzenegger privately brokered 25-year, multibillion dollar deals without so much as an economic study to show how expanded gambling will impact the people of California.
Given the fact that 80% percent of gambling revenue comes from households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, don't you think you need a study to show what this spread of gambling is going to do to the state?
What kind of representative government balances its budget on the backs of its poorest and most vulnerable citizens? Even Russia and other countries around the world who believed that gambling actually produced economic vitality have come to their senses and banned or closed most of their casinos due to the economic strain caused to their economies.
Once again, our elected officials are going for the quick fix approach to fixing the state's budget problems instead of assessing the long-term effects of really bad policy.
What does California get? We all get to sit by and watch our regional economy redirect billions in disposable income (taxable sales) into "sovereign tribal governments" who are not bound by the U.S. Constitution, remain outside regulatory laws and pay no taxes on their $23 Billion profits.
This massive federal scandal's tentacles have found their way into every corner of our government through corrupt campaign finance loopholes. From the White House on down to local county governments who are faced with the dilemma of how to stand up to tribes who exploit their ancestral suffering to bully local governments into giving them what they want.
Wake up California!
The gaming tribes' plight no longer has anything to do with civil rights, justice or historical reparations, but rather with self-indulgent gambling expansion under the guise of self-determination.
Schwarzenegger Sells California Out to Gambling Casinos
by Kathryn Bowen
Whoever coined the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" must have been talking about the 35 million Californians trusting that their governor and their elected officials are actually doing their job with respect to gambling casinos run by Indian tribes in our state.
"Bliss" is what Governor Schwarzenegger has been selling the public while he sells the State down the river by granting the largest expansion of gambling in history to 5 casino tribes. 5,000 MORE machines each, to tribes that are eliminating Indians from tribes.
In the wake of Californian's support of Prop 1A, former Governor, Gray Davis, negotiated gambling compacts with Indian Tribes. Millions of voters succumbed to a brilliant marketing campaign that casino tribes invested nearly $100 Million into, equal to a presidential election, to persuade voters to change our State constitution and direct gambling monopolies to Indian tribes. I was one of those voters.
Here's the bad news.
At this moment, your elected representatives in California are just about to vote on whether to grant 5 casino tribes, consisting of just 1,876 people, the ability to expand willy-nilly despite the impact on our communities, families, children and ultimately the financial future of California. Now, Pechanga has eliminated 250 members and are keeping at least 500 more off their rolls where they rightfully belong.
This is just the beginning; 67 additional tribes with gaming compacts are waiting in the wings and the Governor may not inform the public when renegotiations commence with these tribes.
The reality is the revenue promised for the state through gambling expansion will not materialize. The Governor and his advisors know this and should probably buy a new calculator because they know the expected income is neither measurable nor enforceable!
Thousands of emails, letters, phone calls and exhaustive testimony attempting to alert our elected officials of endless issues regarding jurisdiction, regulation, accounting and disastrous social costs have fallen on deaf ears.
The reason for the hearing loss? Could it be the massive unregulated tribal contributions flowing into political campaigns of the majority of our elected officials in our State Capitol?
In fact, tribes poured $429,600 into the campaigns of just fifteen assembly members who held an "impartial" hearing on problematic regulatory issues with the compacts and will be key in deciding their fate. How impartial can they really be when taking money from the same tribes that will benefit from their vote? By any definition, this is a profound conflict of interest.
Making matters worse, the Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS), the only federal regulatory leg left to oversee the integrity of the games and to collect the money, has been eliminated from the compacts.
What does this mean? These so-called compacts are really contracts that will cement a permanent partnership between the State of California and loosely regulated gambling casino tribes for the next 25-years, without the ability of the state to audit and collect the money or to ensure fair gaming for the patrons.
Casino tribes have kicked federal regulators off their land claiming sovereignty. What makes the state think its going to be any more successful especially given the fact there are simply not enough enforcement resources?
Moreover, Schwarzenegger privately brokered 25-year, multibillion dollar deals without so much as an economic study to show how expanded gambling will impact the people of California.
Given the fact that 80% percent of gambling revenue comes from households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, don't you think you need a study to show what this spread of gambling is going to do to the state?
What kind of representative government balances its budget on the backs of its poorest and most vulnerable citizens? Even Russia and other countries around the world who believed that gambling actually produced economic vitality have come to their senses and banned or closed most of their casinos due to the economic strain caused to their economies.
Once again, our elected officials are going for the quick fix approach to fixing the state's budget problems instead of assessing the long-term effects of really bad policy.
What does California get? We all get to sit by and watch our regional economy redirect billions in disposable income (taxable sales) into "sovereign tribal governments" who are not bound by the U.S. Constitution, remain outside regulatory laws and pay no taxes on their $23 Billion profits.
This massive federal scandal's tentacles have found their way into every corner of our government through corrupt campaign finance loopholes. From the White House on down to local county governments who are faced with the dilemma of how to stand up to tribes who exploit their ancestral suffering to bully local governments into giving them what they want.
Wake up California!
The gaming tribes' plight no longer has anything to do with civil rights, justice or historical reparations, but rather with self-indulgent gambling expansion under the guise of self-determination.
From Paulina Hunter's Blog: Pechanga Helping to Destroy Sovereignty
Paulina Hunter's blog
PECHANGA & CA Tribes on Path to Destroy Sovereignty?
I have been saying for years that the violations of civil rights by Pechanga and the skirting of laws by Pechanga and other California Tribes will be responsible for the erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in the United States.
The author below apparently believes as I do. CONGRATULATIONS PECHANGA, you are hurting Indian Country. I'm guessing your WHITE MAN, MURPHY, that you put on your Tribal Council doesn't care.
Pechanga, it's NOT TOO LATE! Simply reverse your decision to disenroll "upon further review" and bring your families back into the tribe where they belong. Admit you were in ERROR when you failed to follow Tribal law. SWALLOW your pride and DO THE RIGHT THING.
The Never-Ending Fight to Defend Sovereignty
Indian law, sovereignty and jurisdiction are not "one size fits all" issues in Indian country. There are too many variances in how different states view the Indian nations within their borders and even in how the federal government reacts to issues of sovereignty.
With the surge in Indian gaming in states like California, a state where Public Law 280 gives the state government jurisdiction over law enforcement and the courts, the issues are far different than say in South Dakota, where the state government has no jurisdiction.
When Public Law 280 was first pushed upon the different states by the federal government it was intended to open the doors for state jurisdiction on Indian reservations. The tribes of South Dakota, the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota, have always been strong advocates of their own sovereign status. They had been at war with the state government for too many years to not understand that state jurisdiction in their courts and in law enforcement would automatically bring about severe inequity.
The former president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Robert Burnette (now deceased), fought the idea of Public Law 280 tooth and nail. He pushed the reality that if the state assumed jurisdiction over the tribal courts, jails and law enforcement, the costs to the state would be prohibitive. With nine Indian reservations in the state and upwards of 70,000 Indians, the transition alone would have cost the state millions and
PECHANGA & CA Tribes on Path to Destroy Sovereignty?
I have been saying for years that the violations of civil rights by Pechanga and the skirting of laws by Pechanga and other California Tribes will be responsible for the erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in the United States.
The author below apparently believes as I do. CONGRATULATIONS PECHANGA, you are hurting Indian Country. I'm guessing your WHITE MAN, MURPHY, that you put on your Tribal Council doesn't care.
Pechanga, it's NOT TOO LATE! Simply reverse your decision to disenroll "upon further review" and bring your families back into the tribe where they belong. Admit you were in ERROR when you failed to follow Tribal law. SWALLOW your pride and DO THE RIGHT THING.
The Never-Ending Fight to Defend Sovereignty
Indian law, sovereignty and jurisdiction are not "one size fits all" issues in Indian country. There are too many variances in how different states view the Indian nations within their borders and even in how the federal government reacts to issues of sovereignty.
With the surge in Indian gaming in states like California, a state where Public Law 280 gives the state government jurisdiction over law enforcement and the courts, the issues are far different than say in South Dakota, where the state government has no jurisdiction.
When Public Law 280 was first pushed upon the different states by the federal government it was intended to open the doors for state jurisdiction on Indian reservations. The tribes of South Dakota, the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota, have always been strong advocates of their own sovereign status. They had been at war with the state government for too many years to not understand that state jurisdiction in their courts and in law enforcement would automatically bring about severe inequity.
The former president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Robert Burnette (now deceased), fought the idea of Public Law 280 tooth and nail. He pushed the reality that if the state assumed jurisdiction over the tribal courts, jails and law enforcement, the costs to the state would be prohibitive. With nine Indian reservations in the state and upwards of 70,000 Indians, the transition alone would have cost the state millions and
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Why Arnold shouldn't have a say in Pechanga Compacts
Because he has moronic ideas like the one in the article below. He thinks that giving Pechanga 5,000 more machines is a good thing. Why? When they have cheated their own people? That's like buying coyotes hiking boots so their feet don't hurt bringing illegals over the border.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-docs14may14,1,4766802.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
Some doctors don't like this Medi-Cal prescription
Schwarzenegger's plan would tap physicians to help pay for universal healthcare. The issue has left the medical profession increasingly divided.By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2007
SACRAMENTO — With an outraged tone, Dr. Samuel Fink dismisses Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to tap physicians to help pay for universal healthcare.
"That makes about as much sense as taxing teachers to provide a better education, or taxing Assembly members or senators to pay for upkeep of the Capitol," said Fink, a Tarzana internist. "We're part of the solution, not the problem."
But Hector Flores, a family physician who practices in East Los Angeles, is in a minority that supports the governor's idea of collecting 2% of physicians' gross income to help pay for a $4-billion increase in Medi-Cal payments that the state makes to doctors who tend to the poor.
"Most of the physicians who complain about this aren't really serving the Medi-Cal or low-income population anyway," said Flores, whose 22-doctor office treats a large number of uninsured and poor patients. "These are the docs who don't mind paying $10,000 to join an exclusive club somewhere."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-docs14may14,1,4766802.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
Some doctors don't like this Medi-Cal prescription
Schwarzenegger's plan would tap physicians to help pay for universal healthcare. The issue has left the medical profession increasingly divided.By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2007
SACRAMENTO — With an outraged tone, Dr. Samuel Fink dismisses Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to tap physicians to help pay for universal healthcare.
"That makes about as much sense as taxing teachers to provide a better education, or taxing Assembly members or senators to pay for upkeep of the Capitol," said Fink, a Tarzana internist. "We're part of the solution, not the problem."
But Hector Flores, a family physician who practices in East Los Angeles, is in a minority that supports the governor's idea of collecting 2% of physicians' gross income to help pay for a $4-billion increase in Medi-Cal payments that the state makes to doctors who tend to the poor.
"Most of the physicians who complain about this aren't really serving the Medi-Cal or low-income population anyway," said Flores, whose 22-doctor office treats a large number of uninsured and poor patients. "These are the docs who don't mind paying $10,000 to join an exclusive club somewhere."
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Freedman Seek Injunction to HALT Cherokee Funding
Freedmen seek injunction to halt Cherokees’ funding
By Donna Hales
Muskogee Phoenix Staff Writer
Six Cherokee Freedmen have filed for an injunction to halt federal funding to the Cherokees and stop recognizing any Cherokee election.
The filing in the federal court for the District of Columbia also asks the court to prohibit Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and the Department of Interior from recognizing the government-to-government relationship with the Cherokee Nation until the Nation restores Freedmen to full citizenship.
The Freedmen request the court to prohibit the upcoming June 23 election of Cherokee officials until the Freedmen can vote and run for office pursuant to the terms of the Treaty of 1866.
That treaty states the Freedmen are granted “all the rights of native Cherokees” and that Cherokee Nation shall enact no law “inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or laws of Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United States.”
“I just think this is a suit that’s not winnable (for the Cherokee Nation) on the issues at hand,” Cherokee Nation Councilor Linda O’Leary, chair of the Executive and Finance Committee, said Wednesday.
“When we’re talking about civil liberties, then we are on the losing end of the stick here.”
O’Leary said Principal Chief Chad Smith was the main supporter of the special election to disenfranchise Freedmen.
“Chad did this for political reasons to keep the Freedmen from voting (in the upcoming election) — and the Cherokee Nation will have to spend millions of dollars in legal funds,” O’Leary said.
Cherokee Nation spokesman Mike Miller said the Cherokee Nation is being sued.
“It’s not our choice whether we spend money to defend ourselves or not,” Miller said. “It was not a lawsuit we filed, but a lawsuit filed against us.”
Freedmen attorney Jon Velie said less than 3 percent of the Cherokee Nation voted to oust the Freedmen in a March 3 election.
Miller said the vote on the Freedmen came after more than 3,000 Cherokee people signed a petition to bring it about. O’Leary said that although the tribe’s highest court said the petition was legal, some justices did not agree.
Miller said the court ruled the petition legal and “we don’t get to pick and choose which court decisions we agree with. We abide by them all.”
The Freedmen not being allowed to vote in the Cherokee Nation election was a violation of the Treaty of 1866 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Velie said.
“The Court (Washington, D.C.) also held that the Cherokee Nation’s denial of the Freedmen’s right to vote constituted a ‘badge of slavery.’” Velie said. “Badges of slavery are prohibited under the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The current motion seeks relief for further violations of the Treaty and 13th Amendment by expelling the Freedmen during the appeal.”
Marilyn Vann, lead plaintiff and elected leader of the Freedmen Band of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, said it is her duty to stand up for her ancestors who walked and died on the Trail of Tears and the future generations of Cherokees as “we fight for the treaty rights negotiated by our leaders in 1866.
“I will not stand by and watch as others attempt to strip me of who I am,” Vann said.
Freedmen began receiving letters March 21, stating their citizenship status had been changed following the March 3 election, the filing states.
A court exhibit, a letter from the Cherokee Nation to Freedmen plaintiff Charlene White, states “because of the Constitutional Amendment, you are no longer eligible to receive medical benefits from the Cherokee Nation.”
The filing claims unless restrained by the federal defendants or the court, the Cherokee Nation will deny all Cherokee Freedmen their right to vote or run for office in the scheduled June 23 tribal election.
The court earlier refused to stop the special March 3 election in which the Freedmen were disenfranchised, However, the court noted that even assuming that the outcome the Freedmen feared came to pass, “the Freedmen have a remedy if the election results in the deprivation of their constitutional rights.”
That outcome has come to pass, the latest filing states. Federal defendants “are doing absolutely nothing to protect the rights of plaintiffs and other Freedmen.”
Court appoints attorney for Freedmen in lawsuit
A Tahlequah attorney was appointed to represent a class of 270 Freedmen appealing their disenfranchisement as Cherokee citizens.
“I haven’t hidden my support for the Freedmen,” Nate Young III said after being appointed by the Cherokee Nation District Court. “I voted ‘no’ on the amendment. I plan to file my petition Friday before the close for request for absentee ballots.”
Young is seeking a temporary injunction to halt the June elections.
He said he will be asking the court:
• Not to disenroll the Freedmen before a fair hearing on the merits of the case.
• And to not disenroll them from receiving benefits before such a hearing.
Young said the case probably will end up before the Cherokee Supreme Court.
By Donna Hales
Muskogee Phoenix Staff Writer
Six Cherokee Freedmen have filed for an injunction to halt federal funding to the Cherokees and stop recognizing any Cherokee election.
The filing in the federal court for the District of Columbia also asks the court to prohibit Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and the Department of Interior from recognizing the government-to-government relationship with the Cherokee Nation until the Nation restores Freedmen to full citizenship.
The Freedmen request the court to prohibit the upcoming June 23 election of Cherokee officials until the Freedmen can vote and run for office pursuant to the terms of the Treaty of 1866.
That treaty states the Freedmen are granted “all the rights of native Cherokees” and that Cherokee Nation shall enact no law “inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or laws of Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United States.”
“I just think this is a suit that’s not winnable (for the Cherokee Nation) on the issues at hand,” Cherokee Nation Councilor Linda O’Leary, chair of the Executive and Finance Committee, said Wednesday.
“When we’re talking about civil liberties, then we are on the losing end of the stick here.”
O’Leary said Principal Chief Chad Smith was the main supporter of the special election to disenfranchise Freedmen.
“Chad did this for political reasons to keep the Freedmen from voting (in the upcoming election) — and the Cherokee Nation will have to spend millions of dollars in legal funds,” O’Leary said.
Cherokee Nation spokesman Mike Miller said the Cherokee Nation is being sued.
“It’s not our choice whether we spend money to defend ourselves or not,” Miller said. “It was not a lawsuit we filed, but a lawsuit filed against us.”
Freedmen attorney Jon Velie said less than 3 percent of the Cherokee Nation voted to oust the Freedmen in a March 3 election.
Miller said the vote on the Freedmen came after more than 3,000 Cherokee people signed a petition to bring it about. O’Leary said that although the tribe’s highest court said the petition was legal, some justices did not agree.
Miller said the court ruled the petition legal and “we don’t get to pick and choose which court decisions we agree with. We abide by them all.”
The Freedmen not being allowed to vote in the Cherokee Nation election was a violation of the Treaty of 1866 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Velie said.
“The Court (Washington, D.C.) also held that the Cherokee Nation’s denial of the Freedmen’s right to vote constituted a ‘badge of slavery.’” Velie said. “Badges of slavery are prohibited under the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The current motion seeks relief for further violations of the Treaty and 13th Amendment by expelling the Freedmen during the appeal.”
Marilyn Vann, lead plaintiff and elected leader of the Freedmen Band of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, said it is her duty to stand up for her ancestors who walked and died on the Trail of Tears and the future generations of Cherokees as “we fight for the treaty rights negotiated by our leaders in 1866.
“I will not stand by and watch as others attempt to strip me of who I am,” Vann said.
Freedmen began receiving letters March 21, stating their citizenship status had been changed following the March 3 election, the filing states.
A court exhibit, a letter from the Cherokee Nation to Freedmen plaintiff Charlene White, states “because of the Constitutional Amendment, you are no longer eligible to receive medical benefits from the Cherokee Nation.”
The filing claims unless restrained by the federal defendants or the court, the Cherokee Nation will deny all Cherokee Freedmen their right to vote or run for office in the scheduled June 23 tribal election.
The court earlier refused to stop the special March 3 election in which the Freedmen were disenfranchised, However, the court noted that even assuming that the outcome the Freedmen feared came to pass, “the Freedmen have a remedy if the election results in the deprivation of their constitutional rights.”
That outcome has come to pass, the latest filing states. Federal defendants “are doing absolutely nothing to protect the rights of plaintiffs and other Freedmen.”
Court appoints attorney for Freedmen in lawsuit
A Tahlequah attorney was appointed to represent a class of 270 Freedmen appealing their disenfranchisement as Cherokee citizens.
“I haven’t hidden my support for the Freedmen,” Nate Young III said after being appointed by the Cherokee Nation District Court. “I voted ‘no’ on the amendment. I plan to file my petition Friday before the close for request for absentee ballots.”
Young is seeking a temporary injunction to halt the June elections.
He said he will be asking the court:
• Not to disenroll the Freedmen before a fair hearing on the merits of the case.
• And to not disenroll them from receiving benefits before such a hearing.
Young said the case probably will end up before the Cherokee Supreme Court.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Disenrolled Tribal Members Join GAMING DEBATE
Ex-tribal members join gaming debate
INDIAN RIGHTS: They press lawmakers to add protections to any new casino agreements.
www.pe.com
07:53 AM PDT on Friday, May 11, 2007
By MICHELLE DeARMOND
The Press-Enterprise
Away from the costly TV blitz and aggressive ground battles being waged over the future of Indian gambling, another campaign is beginning.
Californians who have been kicked out of Indian tribes are joining forces with some state Democrats to fight the Indian casino agreements pending in Sacramento. The ex-tribal members and their allies believe any new deals to let tribes expand their casinos should include provisions to protect Indian civil rights.
Steve Haze, vice chairman of the Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, says the amended agreements need to be rewritten to protect disenrolled members or those targeted for disenrollment.
"My feeling is that we need to step back, take some time and address some of these other issues," Haze said.
"If not, then I don't see how we can in good conscience allow for such a significant expansion of gaming for a handful of tribes."
Haze, former members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and other disenrolled Indians, are pushing the California Democratic Party to adopt a resolution that recognizes some Indians' civil rights have been violated and supports state and federal efforts to reform the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act.
Disenrolled members of the Pechanga tribe, who say they were unfairly kicked out, are working with disenrolled members of other tribes across the state to build Democratic Party opposition to the compacts and support for Haze's resolution.
The Pechanga tribe, which has a casino near Temecula, has kicked two families out of the tribe over the past few years, arguing they were improperly enrolled. Members of one of the families were on hand at the recent state Democratic Party convention in San Diego, trying to build support for Haze's resolution.
They hope to testify in the Assembly when members there consider the Pechanga tribe's pending proposal for an expanded casino, said John Gomez Jr., whose extended family of 130 people was kicked out in March 2004.
INDIAN RIGHTS: They press lawmakers to add protections to any new casino agreements.
www.pe.com
07:53 AM PDT on Friday, May 11, 2007
By MICHELLE DeARMOND
The Press-Enterprise
Away from the costly TV blitz and aggressive ground battles being waged over the future of Indian gambling, another campaign is beginning.
Californians who have been kicked out of Indian tribes are joining forces with some state Democrats to fight the Indian casino agreements pending in Sacramento. The ex-tribal members and their allies believe any new deals to let tribes expand their casinos should include provisions to protect Indian civil rights.
Steve Haze, vice chairman of the Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, says the amended agreements need to be rewritten to protect disenrolled members or those targeted for disenrollment.
"My feeling is that we need to step back, take some time and address some of these other issues," Haze said.
"If not, then I don't see how we can in good conscience allow for such a significant expansion of gaming for a handful of tribes."
Haze, former members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and other disenrolled Indians, are pushing the California Democratic Party to adopt a resolution that recognizes some Indians' civil rights have been violated and supports state and federal efforts to reform the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act.
Disenrolled members of the Pechanga tribe, who say they were unfairly kicked out, are working with disenrolled members of other tribes across the state to build Democratic Party opposition to the compacts and support for Haze's resolution.
The Pechanga tribe, which has a casino near Temecula, has kicked two families out of the tribe over the past few years, arguing they were improperly enrolled. Members of one of the families were on hand at the recent state Democratic Party convention in San Diego, trying to build support for Haze's resolution.
They hope to testify in the Assembly when members there consider the Pechanga tribe's pending proposal for an expanded casino, said John Gomez Jr., whose extended family of 130 people was kicked out in March 2004.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Paulina Hunter's Blog on POWERLINE
There is a discussion of the Pechanga corruption going on at Powerline's forum:
Powerline’s Forum
I urge you to take a look at the discussion. There are some links for your education on this issue
Powerline’s Forum
I urge you to take a look at the discussion. There are some links for your education on this issue
Corruption At Pechanga
Looks like the FBI and the Riverside Sheriffs were involved in the takedown of Larry Miranda at the Pechanga Casino. Larry is the son of former tribal chairman Jennie Miranda, whose one of the leaders of disenrollment of tribal members to gain more per capita dollars.
Reports are that he was skimming from employees Tips and also that he used a name for the new area in the casino that was already in use in Las Vegas.
Stay tuned.
Reports are that he was skimming from employees Tips and also that he used a name for the new area in the casino that was already in use in Las Vegas.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Pechanga Resists New Security Rules
California tribes resist new security rules
4 May 2007
SACRAMENTO, California – As reported by the San Diego Union Tribune: "Hopes for quick agreement on a new set of uniform security rules for California's nearly 60 Indian casinos have been dashed by resistance, if not outright opposition, from a large number of the state's tribes.
"After what some participants described as a stormy session of a tribal-state association on Wednesday, the group agreed only to reconvene two months from now to form a task force on the matter.
"That will prevent the California Gambling Control Commission from formally considering any new internal casino standards until after the Legislature is set to adjourn for the year on Sept. 14.
"The open-ended delay could make it more difficult to ratify expansive new gambling agreements, or compacts, for five powerful Southern California gaming tribes, including Sycuan of El Cajon and Pechanga of Temecula..."
4 May 2007
SACRAMENTO, California – As reported by the San Diego Union Tribune: "Hopes for quick agreement on a new set of uniform security rules for California's nearly 60 Indian casinos have been dashed by resistance, if not outright opposition, from a large number of the state's tribes.
"After what some participants described as a stormy session of a tribal-state association on Wednesday, the group agreed only to reconvene two months from now to form a task force on the matter.
"That will prevent the California Gambling Control Commission from formally considering any new internal casino standards until after the Legislature is set to adjourn for the year on Sept. 14.
"The open-ended delay could make it more difficult to ratify expansive new gambling agreements, or compacts, for five powerful Southern California gaming tribes, including Sycuan of El Cajon and Pechanga of Temecula..."
Concerned Pechanga People Member FrogMarched out of Pechanga's Casino?
There is a very strong rumor that Larry, son of former Pechanga Tribal Spokesman, Jennie Miranda, was marched out of the Pechanga Casino.
This usually means that Larry did a no-no. Does the NGIC know about this? Has Pechanga finally chosen to get tough on corruption?
Is there an investigation pending? Why isn't the Press Enterprise printing the story.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Delay on security could delay Pechanga Compacts.
SACRAMENTO – Hopes for quick agreement on a new set of uniform security rules for California's nearly 60 Indian casinos have been dashed by resistance, if not outright opposition, from a large number of the state's tribes.
After what some participants described as a stormy session of a tribal-state association on Wednesday, the group agreed only to reconvene two months from now to form a task force on the matter.
That will prevent the California Gambling Control Commission from formally considering any new internal casino standards until after the Legislature is set to adjourn for the year on Sept. 14.
The open-ended delay could make it more difficult to ratify expansive new gambling agreements, or compacts, for five powerful Southern California gaming tribes, including Sycuan of El Cajon and Pechanga of Temecula.
The big tribes are among those pushing development of state guidelines to replace more than 100 pages of federal standards tossed out by federal courts. Assembly Democrats say the regulatory void must be filled before the compacts are approved.
Click to read the rest of the article, use your back button to return to this page:
After what some participants described as a stormy session of a tribal-state association on Wednesday, the group agreed only to reconvene two months from now to form a task force on the matter.
That will prevent the California Gambling Control Commission from formally considering any new internal casino standards until after the Legislature is set to adjourn for the year on Sept. 14.
The open-ended delay could make it more difficult to ratify expansive new gambling agreements, or compacts, for five powerful Southern California gaming tribes, including Sycuan of El Cajon and Pechanga of Temecula.
The big tribes are among those pushing development of state guidelines to replace more than 100 pages of federal standards tossed out by federal courts. Assembly Democrats say the regulatory void must be filled before the compacts are approved.
Click to read the rest of the article, use your back button to return to this page:
Can Pechanga be Left Out in the Cold?
Pechanga has been getting a lot of bad press lately. A report on their disenrollment was on the local news in Palm Springs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ochSd6bdMMY
Shortly after, KABC 7 did a stand up in front of the Pechanga Casino, with Robert Holguin reporting.
Then, KNBC 4 in Los Angeles did a POWERFUL expose that showed Pechanga Chairman MARK MACARRO to be LYING in the first 15 seconds of the piece, and also portrayed Pechanga's EXPERT in the matter, Dr. John Johnson who showed that Hunter Family ancestor Paulina Hunter WAS PECHANGA:
http://video.nbc4.tv/player/?id=64156
Then at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego, Candidate for POTUS, Dennis Kucinich spoke out against disenrollment and denial of civil rights to Native Americans AT THE NATIVE AMERICAN Caucus... All eyes focused on the Pechanga Tribal Council that was in the audience.
Will Morongo and San Manuel stand up against their rival Pechanga?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ochSd6bdMMY
Shortly after, KABC 7 did a stand up in front of the Pechanga Casino, with Robert Holguin reporting.
Then, KNBC 4 in Los Angeles did a POWERFUL expose that showed Pechanga Chairman MARK MACARRO to be LYING in the first 15 seconds of the piece, and also portrayed Pechanga's EXPERT in the matter, Dr. John Johnson who showed that Hunter Family ancestor Paulina Hunter WAS PECHANGA:
http://video.nbc4.tv/player/?id=64156
Then at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego, Candidate for POTUS, Dennis Kucinich spoke out against disenrollment and denial of civil rights to Native Americans AT THE NATIVE AMERICAN Caucus... All eyes focused on the Pechanga Tribal Council that was in the audience.
Will Morongo and San Manuel stand up against their rival Pechanga?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)