I get that question asked a lot.
In the Pechanga Tribal Council's Memo to the General Membership Re: the Petition Dated June 19, 2005,
The memo to the tribal members cites the Constitution as providing the Council with the "duty to uphold the Constitution, Bylaws and ordinances", but the memo failed to quote the Constitution and Bylaws, Article III which states: "The simple majority (of the general membership)...shall rule and decide in all matters of government and business of the Band." It's clear that Article III recognizes the General Membership's ultimate authority to make decisions regarding all government matters- including enrollment and disenrollment issues. The General Membership's authority and powers trumps those of the Enrollment Committee and the Council in all matters.
The Enrollment Committee was NEVER granted ultimate authority to trump actions of the General Membership regarding enrollment and disenrollment. By custom and tradition, the Enrollment Committee has always taken its directives from the General Membership, and the General Membership has always enjoyed and exercised its authority as the ultimate decision maker on such matters . \
Here are several major issues that illustrate this point:
A. The General Membership approved 2 Enrollment Applications (the first in 1979 and the 2nd in 1996). Although the Enrollment Committees drafted each, changes were made by the General Membership and the ultimate approval of each was via votes of the General Membership. The Enrollment Committee did not then nor do they now have sole discretion or authority in enrollment and disenrollment issues.
B. The General Membership, not the Enrollment Committee, adopted the Murphys into the tribe. In fact, the Enrollment Committee recognized that it did not have the authority to "adopt" the Murphys as members. Therefore, the issue was presented to the General Mempership which was and is the ultimate decider on enrollment and disenrollment issues.
C. The moritoriums on processing enrollment applications were approved by the General Membership. The processing of enrollment applications is the basic duty of the Enrollment Committee. Even though this is so, the Enrollment Committee could not institute a moritorium on its own. The moritoriums had to be discussed, voted on and passed by the ultimate decision-maker in enrollment and disenrollment issues- the General Membership.
Staying with the moritorium issue for a bit, if you apply the reasoning expressed by the Tribal Council in the March 14, 2006 letter, the moritoriums would be in conflict with the Constitution's membership requirements (just as they claim portions of the Petition dated June 19, 2005 are), were/are illegal, and should be subject to the same fate as those provisions of the Petiton, i.e. the moritorium should be lifted.
D. The General Membership, not the Enrollment Committee, voted on and enacted the Disenrollment Procedures contrary to the position stated in the Tribal Council's memo, the examples provided above clearly illustrate that the Enrollment Committee does not enjoy ultimate decision making authority or sole discretion in issues concerning enrollment or disenrollment. The Enrollment Committee's authority is clearly derived from the General Membership and the Enrollment Committee exists and serves at the pleasure of the General Membership. The General Membership can, through the authority cited in Article III, and in accordance with custom and tradition, take actions to interrupt, halt, or even disband the Enrollment Committee.
Finally, IF the Tribal Council's action was such a righteous one and was indeed intended to protect the integrity of the Constitution, why did they wait 4 1/2 months to notify the General Membership? Shouldn't they have made the decision right away? Does the Tribal Council IN FACT have the ability to overrule the will of the people?
Comments please
32 comments:
Thank You for this IMPORTANT information. I am so glad the Murphy issue was brought up. I find it so confusing that the Tribal council seems so concerned with blood lines and "truly" belonging to this tribe and they let a parasite like Butch Murphy not only become a member of the tribe but let him have a seat on the tribal council. I think they said he accepted the Indian way at some point. Bologna!!!!!
Yes, the general membership voted on April 20, 1986 to accept the heirs of Rose Murphy, including Russell "Butch" Murphy, as tribal members after their enrollment applications had been turned down by the band's enrollment committee.
But in allowing the disenrollment of the Hunters to occur on March 16, 2006, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP HAD VOTED ON JULY 19, 2005 TO OUTLAW DISENROLLMENT, the Tribal Council stated in its March 14, 2006 letter to the General Membership that, "The General Membership, through its own authority, may not interrupt or question the actions of the Enrollment Committee, concerning enrollment or disenrollment. This is illegal and in violation of established precedant in Tribal law,"
SO WHAT TRIBAL LAW PRECEDANT WAS THE TRIBAL COUNCIL CITING?
BECAUSE THERE IS A CLEAR PRECEDANT THAT SAYS JUST THE OPPOSITE. THAT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP CAN OVERRULE THE DECISIONS OF THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE REGARDING ENROLLEMENT.
AND THE ONLY REASON RUSSELL BUTCH MURPHY NOW SITS ON THE TRIBAL COUNCIL AND IS EVEN A TRIBAL MEMBER TODAY IS BECAUSE THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP VOTED TO OVERRULLE THE DECISION IN 1986 TO NOT TO ENROLL HIS FAMILY.
This is a very important post. You put the question up, and I would like the council to answer these questions.
This clearly shows the biased actions we faced during our plight. The CPP had sent this thru, on a shoe string. As we have posted before, if the CPP wants you out, there is no chance of a fair or impartial hearing. The Manuela Miranda and Hunter descendants along with the moratorium victims have a sound case. We are finding that the CPP fears that Congress can and will address these questions. These actions are a clear violation of our Civil rights as Indians.
So a question I have is whether Rose Murphy herself, if she was adopted, was adopted in the Indian way prior to 1928, a constitutional requirment.
Because the Tribal Council said in its ruling to not include us, the Hunters, in the 2005 law that outlawed disenrollment that the Band's enrollment requirments were not changed and even though I believe we meet those requirments, stil that is another reason the council gave in allowing us to be disenrolled in 2006.
So if Rose Murphy did not meet the membership requirments, that means her descedants should be disenrolled retroactively even though the tribed voted in 2005 to outlaw disenrollment.
Because that is what the tribe did to us, they retroactively disenrolled our ancestor Paulina Hunter and the law should be applied the same to everyone.
But since the Murphys were allowed to take their case to the people, then so should we, the Hunters.
AFTER ALL, AS I SAID IN MY OTHER POST, CLEAR LEGAL TRIBAL PRECEDANT SAYS THAT THE GENRERAL MEMBERHIP CAN OVERRULE ENROLLMENT DECISIONS OF THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE.
THE MOST GLARING VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS WAS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE V OF PECHANGA'S OWN CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS "AN INDIDVIDUAL MEMBER'S RIGHTS ARE TO BE UPHELD WITHOUT MALICE OR PREDJUDICE."
IN 2002 NEW MEMBERS WERE ELECTED TO THE BAND'S ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE. IN 2003 THOSE NEW ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS, INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS FROM BOTH THE HUNTER AND MANUEAL MIRANDA FAMLIES, REPORTED WRONGDOING TO THE TRIBAL COUNCIL ON THE PART OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM THE CPP FACTION OF THE TRIBE.
TO THIS DAY I DON'T KNOW IF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL EVER FOLLOWED UP ON THE ALLEGATIONS BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THOSE SAME ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM THE CPP FACTION WERE THEN ALLOWED TO RULE ON THE DISENROLLMENT CASES OF BOTH THE HUNTERS AND THE MANUELA MIRANDAS. SO IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT THOSE TWO FAMLIES WERE THEN DISENROLLED.
THE ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM THE CPP FACTION INCLUDED NOT PRECESSING ENROLLMENT APPLICATIONS OF DESCENDANTS OF LEGALLY ENROLLED MEMBERS OF THE BAND.
to those tribal members who think we are continually attacking the tribe consider that some of your relatives may have ended up in the moratorium because of what the CPP has done.
We want the rule of law, fair to everyone, restored to the tribe.
This could be the first of many injustices to be addressed. Once Pechanga has it's REAL people back and the imposters are exposed and dealt with only then can this truly be a sovereign tribe. The way it is now it is like the pirates taking over the ship and then claiming it is their ship. We as a family need to right this wrong. Mr Murphy I think it is time to say goodbye!
Just because the Pechanga Tribal Council does not follow the will of the people, does not correct the enrollment committee, LIES to Congress, Lies on Television, Destroys families, aggravates health issues, takes rightful tribal benefits and does not respect elders....
Does that make them bad people?
The words greedy and evil and yes bad come to mind. We can pray for them.
OP, shouldn't the question NOT be HOW Pechanga did it...
BUT... WHY?
I have a suggestion, most of you focus on negative feelings and posts aimed at the tribe as a whole, when I think you should really focus on the individuals who are to blame. My suggestion is that you tell who actually did the wrongful acts. This would allow you to still speak positively about the tribe, but name those that are to blame. Maybe by doing this you can gain support from additional tribal members, and shape tribal election; that is if some tribal members read these sites.
why dont those who have been disenrolled start having their own meetings and call themselves tribal council seems like if there are 2 councils the bia is quick to get involved whats the worst that can happen the casino closes it worked in san pasqual just a thought
The difference is pechanga enrollment issues are not handled by the Bia, per their bylaws.
Maybe if exisiting Pechanga tribal members do read these comments they may take this information and realize this could happen to any of them. They have someone who by his own admission has not one drop of Pechanga blood running through his veins, and holds a seat in the Tribal council. He has a vote for all of you who are truly members. The thought we can have anyone who we want in our tribe is scary.
Yes, some Pechanga people were so concerned about land owning, registered, sworn member Hunters being enrolled, but not concerned about a NO BLOOD being in charge!
I guess they ARE as stupid as they look.
Yes, Pechanga doesn't have an agreement with the BIA for them to be involved in the band's enrollment issues and the tribe would cite the constitution and bylaws to justify their actions.
However, if they didn't follow their constitution and bylaws in allowing people with malice intent and/or bias to vote on the disenrollees cases, as I said a violation of article V that guarantees equal protection for all Pechanga citizens, and if they didn't follow their own constitution and bylaws when they ignored the wishes of the General Membership, according to article 111 the final authority of tribal government, by allowing people to be disenrolled after the tribe had voted to end disenrollments, doesn't that make the constitution and bylaws a moot point?
The powers that be at Pechanga use selective enforcement of the constitution and bylaws in that they cite the constitution and bylaws when it suits their purpose but ignore it when doesn't suit their plans.
BUT AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, IF TRIBES DON'T EVEN FOLLOW THEIR OWN LAWS, WHO CAN MAKE THEM DO SO BECAUSE OF SOVEREIGNTY, WHICH SOME TRIBES HIDE BEHIND
No, they are not stupid they are scared and they should be. They feel if they distance themselves and not have a voice the wolves will leave them alone. I bet many a Hunter felt the same way when the first family was disenrolled. Shame on all of us, but these people have a chance to make a difference. Look at history no evil dictator stays in forever.
'aamokat you make so many valid points and one would think that the BIA would have a responsibility to step in with all the infractions with Pechanga's own by-laws. Let's face it there are no laws they are running this tribe to meet the needs of a few. Has the BIA been informed in writing of all this wrong doing? What they even there for if they cannot over see this injustice?
The BIA has seen this happening from WITHIN their OWN ranks.
James "JOAQUIN" FLETCHER, BIA acting area chief, is PECHANGA and CPP.
But tribes have to have their constitutions reviewed by the BIA and since the BIA is involved with the drafting of tribal constitutions, could it mean that they could become involved when those tribes violate those constitutions?
Also, congress has plenary power over federally recognized tribes so, at least on paper if not in practice, congress could get involved in this mess.
As far as tribal members goes, a lot of them may not be aware of what happened to us as the proceedings were behind closed doors.
Or some of them are afraid to rock the boat or they believe their leaders that the disenrollment proceedings were fair and that we don't, as our critics who pop in here from time to time say, have the facts on our side.
The other possibility is they hide their head in the sand. Recently I ran into a tribal elder who I hadn't seen since our disenrollment and while he agreed it wasn't fair what happened to us, he said he just doesn't get involved in such things.
As far as trying to not be critical of the tribe as a whole, consider that with just a few exceptions, current tribal members, even those who know the facts and who weren't involved in getting us kicked out of the tribe, have done absolutely nothing on our behalf.
I do know the feeling of wanting to help the M. Mirandas while I was still in the tribe but at the same time not increase the target that was on our back.
But we did raise about 20,000 dollars towards the M. Miranda's legal fund while still in the tribe and this is while we were under attack by the CPP so if someone thinks we did nothing to help our Pechanga brothers and sisters, that isn't true.
We still could have done more though because all we really had to fear was being disenrolled and that happened anyway.
If a tribe becomes factionalized then it would be safe to say that it is dis-organized and recognition should be reconsidered.
I think that instead of seeking splinter bands as a solution to dis-enrolled members, the BIA could step up and recommend coalition governments as a condition of further recognition. I think your argument about the rule of law specific to the Pechanga constitution is valid both from a tribal view and and one needing clear support from the feds. anyhow I think the following case has application for many dis-enrollees:
“United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued October 12, 2007 Decided February 15, 2008
No. 06-5203
CALIFORNIA VALLEY MIWOK TRIBE F/K/A SHEEP RANCH OF
ME-WUK INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA,
APPELLANT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 05cv00739)
…The Secretary suggests that her authority under § 476(h)
includes the power to reject a proposed constitution that does
not enjoy sufficient support from a tribe’s membership. Her
suggestion is reasonable, particularly in light of the federal
government’s unique trust obligation to Indian tribes. See
Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296 (1942)
(noting “the distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the
Government in its dealings with” tribes). A cornerstone of this
obligation is to promote a tribe’s political integrity, which
includes ensuring that the will of tribal members is not
thwarted by rogue leaders when it comes to decisions
affecting federal benefits. See id. at 297 (“Payment of funds at
the request of a tribal council which, to the knowledge of the
Government officers charged with the administration of
Indian affairs . . . , was composed of representatives faithless
to their own people and without integrity would be a clear
breach of the Government’s fiduciary obligation.”);
…This antimajoritarian gambit deserves no stamp of approval
from the Secretary. As Congress has made clear, tribal
organization under the Act must reflect majoritarian values.
See 25 U.S.C. § 476(a) (requiring majority vote by tribe for
adoption of a constitution); id. § 476(b) (requiring majority
vote by tribe for revocation of a constitution); id. §§ 478,
478a (requiring majority vote by tribe in order to exclude
itself from the Act). And as we have previously noted, tribal
governments should “fully and fairly involve the tribal
members in the proceedings leading to constitutional reform.”
…For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
Affirmed
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/unreported/cavalleymiwok.pdf
Allen,
What are we waiting for? Pechanga has done all of the above you mentioned in your comments. We need to move forward on ONE page as a family to right this wrong. Please family think about it, rather we know it or not we all want the same thing JUSTICE!
Here is some more unfairness of our disenrollment, CPP families who had their tribal membership credentials challenged by family members of both the Hunters and Manuela Mirandas, namely Ruth Masiel and Irene Scearce from the Basquez/Masiels, as well as Francis Miranda, a descendant of Canderlaria Flores, were allowed to vote on the disenrollment cases of the Manuela Mirandas and the Hunters (these are the same people who were accused of wrongdoing by people who ended up being disenrolled).
Still another reason to show that the decision to disenroll us was biased is the fact that some of the people who presented challenges to our membership were also from the Basquez/Masiel family and a Basquez/Masiel member ruled on our appeal to the tribal council.
The fact those CPP members were cleared from disenrollment in the first place was suspect to begin with as they were cleared by only three members of the band's Enrollment Committee, less than a legal quorum.
The Enrollment Committee is supposed to consist of ten members with at least 51 percent or more, meaning six members, being a legal quorum.
The tribal council in allowing decisions to be made with less than a quorum, justified their actions by saying that the enrollment committee had been allowed to meet and make decisions with less than a full committee in the past and that enrollment decisions had been made with as few as three members.
However, what specific enrollment decisions had ever been made with a few as three members?
Because while we, the Hunters, were still in the tribe and a family member of ours went to the enrollment committee with a simple request to have her name changed in the tribal records from her maiden name to her married name she was told that the committee on that particular day couldn't meet as there weren't enough members for a legal quorum.
So the committee could not take a simple name change request but they could vote on disenrollment cases with less than an legal quorum?
In contrast, our Record of Decision says in kicking us out of the tribe on the last page of the decision the following:
"THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE ATTESTS THAT THE FOREGOING WAS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM OF THE PECHANGA ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE ON MARCH 16, 2006."
So we, the Hunters, were required to have our case decided by a legal quorum of the Enrollment Committee but the Basquez/Masiels and the descendants of Candarlaria Flores could be cleared by less than a legal quorum of the committee?
Another violation of the equal protection clause in Article V of the Band's constitution.
If you the readers are overwhelmed by the information we have been presenting you are not alone because just writing this stuff makes me tired.
But at least you have an idea how overwhelmingly unfair the disenrollment process was.
I for one am through for now in posting this information as I realize my posts are a little redudant.
'aamokat,
Not at all, thanks for information I was not aware of. So folks what are we going to do about it? OP I think these comments need to be posted on your blog for all to read just in case readers missed all this action. It is time for a change, BIA it is time you become involved.
THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE WAS SO SECRETIVE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE PROVED THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE THAT ORIGINALLY INSISTED THE HUNTERS BE DISENROLLED WRONG, THE DISENROLLMENT CASE WAS CONTINUED, THEREFORE THE TRIBE WAS ALSO KEPT ENTIRELY IN THE DARK THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THE HUNTERS. PECHANGA HAS BEEN DISGRACED!
I remember the day when the Hunter family presented their "Books of Ancestry" just as we had done so many months our disenrollment. I felt sad for them and anger at the tribe for not standing together to stop the wrong being to the tribe. What made it worse was that the books they were presenting looked just like ours and that they the books had the same type of history as ours did; further, I knew that even though they had sworn statements, official certificates', and blue ribbon documentation proving who their ancestors were and that their clam was valid they would be disenrolled just as we had. it would be just a matter of time before they understood. They would see and feel the same emotions as we had.
The Tribe contends that we had our day in court and that we should just move o. this is furthest from the truth. We had one ray of truth in the matter and that was the sedition from Judge Fields of the Riverside courts who ruled that our claim had merits to be heard; however, the corrupt won out and through appeal overturned an honest judge's decision. Well most know that we the Apis family appealed to the US Supreme Court. As predicted, the court chose to address the issue by declining to review the appeal. So when the CPP and the Pechanga supporters of the CPP say to move on they are giving evidence that greed and hate are their god and it is this corruption of god that they trust. I have leered that being Indian is not about money or casinos. It is about living a life that is separate from such things where family and hard work are the rewards of the spirit. Some may ask why fight the power? Well I have never met a bully who I did not want to put in his place. I do not lie people who take advantage of the weak and helpless, and I have seen the hurt to my brothers and sisters this has done to them and their families. I will fight until the wrong are punished and the name of the people is restored with the acceptance of all who are entitled by virtue of our ancestors. Shame on the corrupt and the weak who allow this disparity to the people.
So, I say all of us who have all this information let's put it together and fight. Maybe Mr Velie could add this to his list to represent us for. Please join the fight, waiting on the sidelines will not change things. Again, look at history things have changed when people said enough is enough.
It is important to understand which tribal sovereignty tulips( jurisdiction, membership, civil rights, federal recognition etc.,) the feds are willing to tiptoe through and which tulips they will not tiptoe through. The right to define membership I agree is an internal matter, but re-defining memebership with human rights violations requires a review of recognition. A few quotes and comments:
“01:09 AM PDT on Saturday, September 24, 2005
By RICHARD K. DE ATLEY / The Press-Enterprise
Restraint Required
…"Indian nations never consented to be part of the United States through the U.S. Constitution," said Carole Goldberg, who directs UCLA's Joint Degree Program in Law and Native American Studies. "These are pre-existing governments that ought to retain the authority, at the very least, to define themselves….
…Despite their doubts, the courts had to show restraint, said Goldberg, a UCLA law professor. They are guided by the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling.
Goldberg said intervention from the outside should be triggered only by "International human-rights issues."
"If they don't rise to that level, they are internal matters," she said.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_indianlaw24.22adfb15.html
Those tribal/Native Nation violations would be:
The United Nations
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
…Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his rights thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted
Article 14
All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Article 20
Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Article 23
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State
Article 24
Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.
Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.
Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 27
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. …”
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United States of America, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/81/Add.4 (1994)
"That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Covenant."
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html
This would include it’s federal jurisdiction over Indian Tribes when a human rights violation is identified..
“…Even the U.S. federal government could conceivably express its outrage at the decision of the Cherokee Nation, not by intervening directly and exercising colonial authority as it has usually done, but rather, by cutting off or threatening to cut off non-treaty-based federally funded programs to the Cherokee Nation. In fact, the federal government did exercise this option by withholding funding when the Seminole Nation disenfranchised its freedmen. “
Sheryl Lightfoot, Keweenaw Bay Ojibwe, is a Ph.D. candidate, International Relations and Comparative Politics Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, and chair of the American Indian Policy Center, St. Paul, Minn.”
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414629
“…FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 492 August Term, 1995
(Argued: November 30, 1995 Decided: May 16, 1996)
Docket Nos. 95-7490, 95-7492, 95-7498, 95-7502, 95-7504
PETER L. POODRY, DAVID C. PETERS, SUSAN LAFROMBOISE, JOHN A. REDEYE, and STONEHORSE LONE GOEMAN,
Petitioners-Appellants ,
[F]orfeiture of citizenship and the related devices of banishment and exile have throughout history been used as punishment . . . . Banishment was a weapon in the English legal arsenal for centuries, but it was always adjudged a harsh punishment even by men who were accustomed to brutality in the administration of criminal justice.
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez , 372 U.S. 144, 168 n.23 (1963) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted
Although a denaturalization proceeding is thought to be "civil" or "administrative" in nature, the Supreme Court has long recognized that a deprivation of citizenship is "an extraordinarily severe penalty" with consequences that "may be more grave than consequences that flow from conviction for crimes." Klapprott v. United States , 335 U.S. 601, 611-12 (1949).”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/957490.html
As a tribal citizen you were deprived of access to the tribal constitution and it’s power to protect you.
§ 1302. Constitutional Rights: No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall:
“…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law;…”
http://www.ndnnews.com/Indian%20Civil%20Rights%20Act.htm
On another note, there have been a few that have accused Diane Watson on this board of being racially in preference of the Black Cherokee freedmen because both have similar African descent backgrounds.. A came across this as a counter to that argument:
““…10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, October 2, 2007
By MICHELLE DeARMOND and BEN GOAD
The Press-Enterprise
“…The former members have caught the attention of Rep. Diane Watson, D-Los Angeles. Watson has been among the most outspoken members of Congress to support disenrolled members of various tribes.
On Friday in Washington, she convened a panel on the plight of the Cherokee freedmen, descendants of slaves of the tribe who were granted status as members in an 1866 treaty but kicked out earlier this year.
She said the Cherokee and Pechanga cases were closely linked in that both, at their roots, were about people being denied deserved status.
Watson, who has introduced a bill that would sever ties between the Cherokee tribe and the United States and cut off federal funding for the tribe, said it has become necessary for lawmakers to intervene in issues of tribal membership.
"I stand for justice, fairness and the rule of law," she said. "We need to bring focus to the fact that discrimination continues."
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_pechanga03.2fe60e4.html
Folks, if you have gotten down to this last post you have to agree there is enough information in the above comments that Pechanga's tribal coucil has to be held accountable for their actions. Now where do we start?
Let this be the BEST year ever!!!
It sounds like Diane Watson would be a good start...she has a big mouth and has stood up to tribal matters before..how about Dateline??..NBC has done some positive stories for you...even though I have seeen way too many commercials for Pechanga and San Manuel lately which i am positive is the tribes way of paying off the Networks so they wont do a negative story about them...but Dateline is usually above all that garbage...have you contacted them?...by the way i noticed your hits counter is over 200,000...congratulations..people are reading this site!!
So it seems that most of the problems have been caused by Frances Miranda, and the Masiel/Basquez family. There have been so many people saying that they shouldn't be part of the tribe. Personally, I would like to see an article that details this. I have looked at a lot of the old records and I can't see how the Masiel family is connected to the Garcia family, plus I have heard that Ruth Masiel was adopted herself.
Additionally, there is a position on the council available, and I am sure that someone in the Masiel family will run, maybe another article will hurt their chances of winning.
GREAT IDEA!!!!!!JUST PRINTING OUT THE ABOVE POSTS IS ENOUGH FOR A SUNDAY MOVIE OF THE WEEK. SAD THAT THE CONTENTS IS NOT A FIGMENT OF ONE'S IMAGINATION BUT THE WORK OF SOME VERY EVIL PEOPLE. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT AN HOUR ON OPRAH COULD DO?
Probably the most glaring example of Pechanga violating their constitution was when the tribe voted to outlaw disenrollment in 2005 but the council allowed the disenrollment of the Hunters in 2006 anyway. It is clear that people's intent was to not allow the Hunters to be disenrolled as they, as pointed out in the opinion of this article, are the final authority in such matters not the enrollment committee.
Post a Comment