I haven't received a response when I wrote this last year, I'm reposting it, hoping to hear back. Feel free to copy and send it on to your email lists and blogs.
Open Letter to Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro
From Original Pechanga
Dear Mr. Chairman,
For nearly a decade, you have been in the lead of the tribal council. During that time you have helmed the disenrollment of 25% of your membership.
What makes you proud to be the chairman? That you have made the tribe weaker? You were quoted in 2004 saying, “I believe that our tribal members know the fairness and diligence I try to bring to all of our issues." Where sir, was the diligence in creating fairness on the Enrollment Committee? Why “sir”, did you allow the committee to bring families up for review out of order, instead of the order they came in?
Why “sir”, did you, during your terms in office, not uphold the constitution and bylaws when you allowed an illegal moratorium on membership when the Pechanga constitution and bylaws says open enrollment is every January? How “sir”, can you say you bring fairness and diligence when you did not follow tribal law and in fact skirted the new law that the tribe passed to “halt all disenrollments” ? All currently enrolled members were covered in the July 2005 petition halting disenrollments. Why “sir”, did you not follow tribal law?
Where “sir”, was the fairness when you denied Hunters their civil rights by not allowing members to have an attorney with them to defend their positions? Where “sir”, was the fairness when you would not even allow writing implements for those who came before the Enrollment Committee, and in their appeal to the Tribal Council? Or to see the evidence against them. Was it because there was no credible evidence?
Why “sir”, did you not respond to the questions as to your Enrollment Committee member sleeping through the Hunter family’s hearings? Why “sir”, did you allow hearings to be held when one of the council was late? Couldn’t you even wait for him to hear the appeal, or, did you KNOW, it didn’t matter, as his mind was made up? Why “sir”, did you not respond to the obvious bias of one of your Enrollment Committee members telling Hunter family that they were going to be out no matter what evidence they had?
Why “sir”, did you consolidate cases? Why was each member not allowed to present his or her own case for appeal? Where is the fairness you said you would bring? Was a half hour per member, to appeal their own position, too much to ask?
Why “sir”, was the Enrollment committee allowed to use evidence biased against the Hunter family in their decision, when it was not presented to the family so they could address it in their appeal? Why would the word of a convicted child molester be considered valid versus the most respected authority on California Mission Indians, that Pechanga, not the Hunters chose to research Paulina Hunter? Why was "hearsay" testimony, that wasn't even notarized, turned in by the CPP given more credibility than five other notarized depositions from other current tribal elders not from CPP families that affirmed our membership?
Why "sir", during the shameful period that you and the tribal council were working to disenroll two large families, did you not hold monthly meetings, as was the custom?
How sir, can you say you bring fairness and diligence when you did not follow tribal law and in fact skirted the new law that the tribe passed to “halt all disenrollments”? All currently enrolled members were covered in the November 2005 petition halting disenrollments. Why sir, did you not follow tribal law?
Will you, Mr. Chairman take credit for the erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in California? There is still time to reverse this terrible injustice. Lead the tribe back to peace. Your ancestor Martin Berdugo called mine “Aunt”. Antonio Ashman SWORE to this. Bring the family together.
Please know, Dear Reader, that attacks by a disgruntled disenrollee on tribal leadership cannot restore the Hunter family to its former enrollment status. The Hunter family had plenty of time while still enrolled to produce valid tribal membership credentials, but could not do so. The outside expert, to whom the disenrollees persistently refer, submitted a flawed report riddled with qualifications. Further, the enrollment committee had to gather and weigh all facts and information available to it before reaching a conclusion. Surely, both the expert and the disenrollees can grasp this necessity for a fair outcome. In the end, despite their insistence otherwise, the disenrollees did not have the facts on their side. The committee removed these individuals as a simple matter of correcting an error in the enrollment.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the true case then why did you sign your letters anonymous?...what are you afraid of?..perjury?...and let me ask you..since you are all about honesty....did these people you kicked out get Government money before you got that cash cow Casino?.and did they sign the legal papers when you needed their numbers on your side to get the public to let you have the Casino?..the public fell for your lies the first couple of times because it was supposedly for "self-reliance"...well the public now knows what a bunch of horse-sh*t that was now...your tribe is going to cause the State to let Casinos be built and owned by all...not just tribes and your cash cows are going to be facing much competition..especially now that Veghas is hurting...they will love to invest in CALIFORNIA!!
ReplyDeleteReaders, as you can see this anonymous poster can not produce any details as to why the Hunter clan was shafted by a corrupt faction of the Pechanga community. Several Hunters have posted strong evidence that supports their membership as Temecula Pechanga people. This poster continues to shame the elders of Pechanga, and shows no moral connection for custom or tradition of the Pechanga people. He disrespects our people by ignoring the words of People like Antonio Ashman just to name one.
ReplyDeleteClearly this correction he refers to, is flawed on several points, as many still in the tribe would not be able to qualify for memebrship if they had been asked to produce the same information the Hunters were asked to produce. Actually several calns would be removed if the rules were applied the same way they were w/ the Hunters.
Anonymous wrote, "The outside expert, to whom the disenrollees persistently refer, submitted a flawed report riddled with qualifications." Can you please be more specific. Please cite some of the problems associated with the report submitted by Dr. Johnson? Instead of using anonymous labels such as "the expert", please use specific names since we're talking about actual events done by real people. Treating the events and the people involved with third person referents (i.e. "the expert") dehumanizes the issue. Failing to submit or cite actual errors associated with the evidence in question will then demonstrate your intellectual bankruptcy on the subject at hand.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Andrew
UCLA
I would add:
ReplyDeleteMr. Macarro, why sir did you allow the people who filed the challenges to the disenrollees tribal membership and who were the family members of people who submitted the so called evidence to rule on the disenrollees cases when they should have been made to step aside from ruling on the disenrollees' cases because of conflict of interest?
Article V of the Pechanga constitution and bylaws forbides malice or predjudice by tribal officials against individual tribal members.
The fair thing to do would have been to have unbiased tribal members not related to the accusers or the accused rule on the disenrollees' cases.
We asked the enrollment committee and the tribal council to make the biased committee members step aside from ruling on our cases but they were allowed to rule on our case anyway.
Predictedly we were kicked out of the tribe by a one vote simple majority on the enrollment committee and our appeal to the tribal council was also turned down by a one vote simple majority.
Our annoymous critic claims we had plenty of chance to prove we really are Pechanga but he neglects to point out that without a fair trial we never were given a chance to do so.
Because the evidence in our favor far outweighs the so called evidence presented against us and it should have cleared us.
As far as his questioning of the tribe's own hired expert's report on the genealogy of the Hunter family, in a fair and impartial environment we would not even have to use his report to prove we are Pechanga.
The report does claifiy some points and it does strengthen our case but it isn't by far our only evidence in our favor.
The fact that five current tribal elders, two more current elders testimony were turned in during our appeal to the tribal council, gave notarized statements that we are Pechanga, for a total of seven, and the fact that people from the historical period when the Pechanga reservation was created also gave testimony in our support is more than enough to show our family are Pechanga.
That along with the census records from the period plus other documents would stand up in any real court of law.
But the unbiased slight majority on both the enrollment committee and the tribal council ignored every piece of evidence in our support.
Not only that, there was information used to justify our disenrollment that a lot of other Pechanga families have in their family histories, including the very people who voted us out of the tribe!
So why were families cleared from disenrollment with the same kind of information and others were not?
Anonymous, again, what about Article V of the Band's constitution against malice and predjudice of individual tribal members?
Andrew, our anonymous "friend" pops in here from time to time to make a few general statements and then when we answer his comments with facts he disappears again until later when our anwers are not upfront.
I doubt he will answer your questions.
The first anonymous poster probably thinks O.J. Simpson was innocent too. Jury nullification didn't mean Nicole would come back to life.
ReplyDeleteHowever, by holding their own council to the rule of law, Pechanga can do what is right.
We can also show that the same people who voted us out of the tribe and/or submitted letters challenging our tribal membership, in the early to mid 2000s were the same people who signed enrollment cards or offical enrollment papers for Hunter family members who were enrolled during open enrollment between 1980and 1996.
ReplyDeleteSo the same people approved Hunter family members' membership into the tribe before the casino but voted us out of the tribe after the casino was built.
So why did they sign our enrollment papers when we were enrolled when they now claim the tribe has never recognized us as being Pechanga?
Answer that Anonymous, if you know any of the facts, but don't just make general statements.
We can document that what I said is true can you back up your claims?
If, as our critics in the tribe now claim, that they have never recognized us as being Pechanga, didn't they refuse to sign our enrollment papers in the first place?
I just want to know why Butch "not one drop of Pechanga blood" Murphy is in this tribe and even gets a vote as to who stays and who goes? Now this is a GIANT ERROR THAT NEEDS CORRECTED!!! No need to mention that the General Membership said he gets to stay because as I recall the General Memberships vote is not worth the paper it is written on. Hmmm, I wonder who said that Mr A?
ReplyDeleteAs I have said in other posts, in 1986 the General Membership of the Pechanga tribe voted to take in Butch Murphy's family as tribal members after the enrollment committee had turned down their applications for enrollment, thus overruling the decision of the committee not to enroll them.
ReplyDeleteFast forward to March 2006, just two days before the Hunters received their Record of Decision informing them they were kicked out of the tribe, when the tribal council said that the General Membership of the tribe could not question or interrupt the decisions of the enrollment committee to enroll or disenroll.
This 2006 tribal council ruling was used as a reason for disenrolling the Hunters despite the fact that in July 2005 the General Membership had voted to stop all disenrollments and end disenrollment as a part of Pechanga law and it was in direct violation of established Pechanga legal precedent that says that the General Membership is the final authority in all matters of Pechanga government, including enrollment issues.
So I will again state that Butch Murphy is living breathing proof that the General Membership is the final authority on everything, including enrollment, and if the tribe could decide in 1986 to let Mr. Murphy and his family in as members, then the tribe could and did vote to stop the disenrollment of the Hunters in 2005.
Anonymous tribal member, you always say the facts are not on our side.
So go ahead and post your so called facts again so that we can shoot down your bogus arguments one more time but this time stick around or should I again post your tired old arguments for you and shoot them down once again!
Gentle Readers, I will be very surprised if we hear from the anonymous tribal hack again soon as he just likes to hit and run away and not stay and defend his postitions.
In addressing the comment that the Hunter's had ample time to submit valid credentials the word AMBUSH comes to mind. Secret mailings and meetings with CPP on how to get rid of the Hunter family doesn't sound like much time was given to address any issue. I feel the time line starting in 2005 when the General Membership voted to cease all disenrollment something the CPP did not count on. They knew there was overwhleming evidence that the Hunter's not only belonged to the tribe but most likely had more linage than most tribal members. So with a vote from the general membership to continue the disenrollment process they could move forward with their witch hunt to disenroll the Hunters stating they were doing "the will of the people". When they voted not only to cease ALL disenrollment and to repeat the words of Rat Macarro ALL means ALL including the Hunters pending disenrollment they needed a plan B. Your right the tribal council cannot restore the Hunters but the general membership can and if they value their own membership to the tribe they should. 'aamakat thanks for the old Indian story of how Butch Murphy and his family came to be a Pechanga tribal member. I bet there were people from the Hunter family that voted him in and the story needs to be repeated again and again as the scenerio sums up how wrong this all is. I believe Mr Murphy will get a taste of his own medicine very soon, just watch....
ReplyDeletePlease know, Dear Reader, that tribes determine their own membership in their own forum. The Hunter family has been removed by a legitimate internal tribal procedure that had been used in earlier years, for a similar purpose. This procedure uses a simple due process. As well, the burden of proof lies with the individual subject to disenrollment. Please understand also that this tribal procedure differs from a non-Indian justice system. Hence, comparisons by the non-members between the two may mislead others to a false expectation.
ReplyDeleteFurther, some posters try to argue their side by applying a personal logic, saying if this happened, then this should follow. They bash others. They speak from anger and insistence and repetition. They present a slant and a selective view. They tell a sob story while vilifying tribal leadership and innocent others, including old people.
None of these non-members ever mention that they could not produce a birth record for Paulina Walla Hunter.
None every mention the names of her parents, Mateo Walla and Eulalia Clift -- perhaps because nobody knows their ancestry.
None ever mention that the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not issue a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood for Paulina Walla Hunter, meaning the BIA never tracked her as an Indian.
The BIA probate documents for Paulina Walla Hunter, which her descendants often bring up, refer to her only as a neighbor, never as an Indian.
The non-members sometimes mention that Paulina Walla Hunter received Indian trust land -- an action the BIA now views as a mistake. Anyhow, her ownership of trust land does not matter because land ownership does not appear in the membership criteria.
The non-members always fail to mention the 1950s BIA letter to Emily Hunter Judkins responding to her written request as to how to become a Pechanga member. She wrote her letter at a time when Pechanga determined its membership strictly following an oral tradition. This Pechanga membership process did not include Emily Hunter Judkins because it did not include her ancestor Paulina Walla Hunter.
The list goes on.
Meanwhile, please know, Dear Reader, that the enrollment committee went through a lengthy investigation to gather all the facts and information for determining this serious matter. As a result, the Hunter family, once duly challenged, could not meet the criteria for membership. In turn, the committee took the necessary action to remove this family to conform the membership roll to the membership criteria. The Hunter family disenrollment corrected an error.
I really think you believe what you just wrote. Remember what goes around comes around. You can try to justify all you want but God knows went on behind closed doors and the Bible says
ReplyDeleteNo weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me, declares the LORD. As we are entering Holy week I hope the Holy Spirit can fill your heart with truth and banish that brainwashed rubbish you just wrote. Rememeber you can write this rehearsed lie all you want but God knows what you really did and said behind those closed doors and you will have to answer to him. If that does not concern you then get ready to feel the fire.
Easter Blessings to all
"None of these non-members ever mention that they could not produce a birth record for Paulina Walla Hunter."
ReplyDeleteThe birth record most likely was burned at the San Luis Rey Mission as many birth records are missing for that time period. This poster must know that Indian births were not tracked other than missing Padrones records for that time. The poster must know this is why the Pechanga enrollment committee hired the most respected anthropologist in California mission Indian history Dr. John Johnson.
"None every mention the names of her parents, Mateo Walla and Eulalia Clift -- perhaps because nobody knows their ancestry."
This was also addressed in several other threads on this blog. Many Indians at this time were trying the use of last names,
forced on them by Anglo owners of these Indians since most were used as slaves.
"None ever mention that the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not issue a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood for Paulina Walla Hunter, meaning the BIA never tracked her as an Indian."
The poster must also know that the BIA did not produce CDIB cards for Indians born of this time. However all of her children are listed as Pechanga mission Indians and have CDIB cards.
"The non-members always fail to mention the 1950s BIA letter to Emily Hunter Judkins responding to her written request as to how to become a Pechanga member. She wrote her letter at a time when Pechanga determined its membership strictly following an oral tradition. This Pechanga membership process did not include Emily Hunter Judkins because it did not include her ancestor Paulina Walla Hunter."
The most revered and respected elder of the tribe “Antonio Ashman”, most recently before his death gave Emily Hunter Judkins a signed and sworn statement that he recognized their common ancestor Paulina Hunter as a member of the band. Emily is an enrolled and recognized member of Pechanga.
The bottom line is if tribal law was being up held then after the petition in 2005 that was imposed by the General Membership to CEASE ALL disenrollment then no further procedures should have followed to continue the disenrollment of the Hunter or any other family. Clearly this was a violation of Pechanga tribal law as it is stated that General Membership trumps tribal council. Hey that is how Butch Murphy is sucking his monthly per capita check by a General Membership vote. And the tribal council is concerned about correction errors? No, your not worried about correcting errors your worried that your secrets would have been exposed. FYI-they have been....... Evil will not prevail.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can collect a percap check. Why not give it up? You dont need no stinkin check, your recognized right Butch!
ReplyDeleteIs Anonymous really Mark Macarro?..he has no balls to sign his name to it..but it sounds like his b.s.??....how many tribal members that are still in the tribe could prove (with paperwork) their origin?..probably not very many...what a bunch of double-talk...and dont you love the way he says "Dear Readers"?...what a joke!!
ReplyDelete"The non-members always fail to mention the 1950s BIA letter to Emily Hunter Judkins responding to her written request as to how to become a Pechanga member. She wrote her letter at a time when Pechanga determined its membership strictly following an oral tradition. This Pechanga membership process did not include Emily Hunter Judkins because it did not include her ancestor Paulina Walla Hunter."
ReplyDeleteThe enrollment process was changed in th 70's when the tribe adopted a constitution and bylaws. Although the Hunters were recognized either way through oral tradition or showing lineal descent from a original Temecula Pechanga Person. Antonio Ashman, Dolores and Daniel Tortuga, David Rodriguez, Solida Stevenson just to name a few, gave recorded oral recognition and detailed Paulina Hunter and her decendants family history.
All people above not only referred to Paulina as a neighbor, They clearly stated they knew her as a member of the band and used the term Pechanga indian. The BIA also refers to Paulina and her descendants as Pechanga mission indians and or Temecula indian.
The question is,
ReplyDeleteWill you, Mr. Chairman take credit for the erosion of Tribal Sovereignty in California?
Your ancestor Martin Berdugo called mine “Aunt”. Antonio Ashman SWORE to this. Bring the family together.
Dear readers,
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, the Hunters were questioned about these things, but were disenrolled on other things unrelated to these allegations. This is why they are so pissed. The enrollment committees record of decision indicates that the Hunters were of another triblet and that the band only consisted of 5 original families.
The flaw is that of these five families several of them had the same information on their CDIB as the Hunters. I.E. San Luiseno, Luiseno or San Luis Rey.
If the tribe goes by custom and tradition, then they should listen to the elders of tribe even if they are dead.
As stated before, several current elders refuted the allegations of the CPP that the Hunters were never recognized. People are afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation.
The tribal chairman has continued to ignore the will of the people and has allowed the oppression of tribal members for fear he may loose his control. He knows the truth, and will take it to his grave, unless he does the right thing.
Dear readers,
ReplyDeleteJust to let those who are unaware of the history, Pechanga was the name of a place not a tribe, our tribe moved to the area known as Pechanga and later established the reservation on that land known as The Pechanga Reservation.
According to Dr. Johnson's report:Mateo Quasicac Paulina Hunter's father was born at Pechanga (this was before there was a reservation). In fact he is the only Indian listed in the mission records as being born at Pechanga.
It would seem that her father being born an Indian at Pechanga makes him a Pechanga Indian even before there was a reservation named Pechanga.Paulina Hunter lived in the original Temecula Indian village (fact supported by signed and witnessed documents from the period). She moved with her tribe when they were evicted to the area known as Pechanga, an area well known to her and her family, as her father was born there. She is listed on each and every census record for the Pechanga reservation from its creation until her death. She was granted a land allotment (listing her as a Pechanga Indian) from the president of the United States in the 1800's. And now over 100 years after her death, some are claming she was some other kind of Indian?
It sounds to me that Paulina Hunter's family was clearly one of the first families of what is now the Pechanga tribe. You see this is why the only card that can be played is the sovereignty card, We can determine our own membership". It has nothing to do with true blood lines it is who can play puppet and not question the on goings of evil greedy people. Enlighten us on what the "other" things the Hunter family could have been disenrolled on? Maybe the council did not like questions from moral and upstanding "true" members of what was going on regarding enrollment and other such issues? Heaven knows we could not have a honest and upstanding person holding a position on the enrollment committe or tribal council. Ask any questions and your family is disenrolled. Disenrollment was never meant to disenroll families it was used if questions exist on a person who have said they belonged to a certain family and their linage was questionable.
ReplyDeleteSomebody really needs to dig into the financial dealings of the tribe...if they collect State taxes on the gas they sell and the cigs that they sell and do not send those same taxes onto the State..that is major fraud and they would be prosecuted...no matter their supposed sovereign nation status...I imagine it is the same on the alcohol they sell...and how many of this tribe live off the reservation, but keep a shack on the reservation to keep their tax free status?...only you ex-tribal members kow these facts , since the general piblic would have no firts hand knowledge...time to let the IRS know the facts guys...or the Attorney General?
ReplyDeleteThat Emily Hunter Judkins in the 1950s went to the BIA for assistance with a membership issue is not unusual for that time period as the BIA was directly involved in membership issues back then.
ReplyDeleteI looked for a copy of her letter, I have it somewhere in my paperwork, but haven't been able to find it but from memory, I believe the BIA's response was that because our family had a federal land allotment as Temecula Indians, that was proof enough for Pechanga tribal membership.
This is backed up by the Pechanga tribe's first official written enrollment application in 1978, which is the criteria we were enrolled under, that had a supplement page that listed what the enrollment committee would accept as proof of tribal membership.
Among the acceptable proof was being a direct descendant of Temecula Indians, being a direct descendant of an original allottee, and a deposition from a known recognized Pechanga tribal member.
So even if, as the CPP claims, some people didn't recognize us as Pechanga people, and there are some people alive now who may truly believe this such as our anonymous critic, other credible people alive now and others who were adults during the historical period in question, have verified we are Pechanga.
The only evidence against us is hearsay from current tribal members from the CPP faction, missing records from the historical period that a lot of families couldn't find as well, including our critics, and some articles that we never even saw before our Record of Decision that reportedly backs up the slim majority on the enrollment committee's twisted interpretation of tribal history and that's it folks.
I and others have repeatedly answered our critic's position about the different family names in our family history and the missing historical records, which are issues that the Johnson report claifies, and about how, despite our critic's assertion, The BIA does recognize our family as being Pechanga, so I will, in another post, again list some of the evidence that supports our claim or being Pechanga.
CONTINUED FROM MY LAST POST, SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES WE, THE HUNTERS, ARE PECHANGA.
ReplyDeleteKnown recognized Pechanga tribal member Dolores Tortuga, in the 1915probate hearings for Paulina Hunter's Pechanga land allotment said when she was asked by the examiner, "were you acquainted with the deceased Pechanga Indian Allottee, Paulina Hunter, during her lifetime, and are you familar with her family history?"
Tortuga's response was, "yes, I knew her as a neighbor when we Pechanga Indians lived on the Pauba Ranch near Temecula, California."
Despite our critic's assertions, it is clear that the probate examiner indentified Paulina Hunter as a Pechanga Indian and that the witness was including Paulina in the inclusive "WE PECHANGA INDIANS."
Tortuga then went on to list for the record information on Paulina's family, including the names of all of Paulina's children, so clearly Tortuga knew our family well as would be fitting for a fellow tribal member.
Also in those 1915 probate hearings, recognized Pechanga tribal members, Jose David Rodriguez affirmed Tortuga's testimony with the following:
When he was asked by the probate examiner, "were you acquainted with the deceased Pechanga Indian Allottee, Paulina Hunter, and are you familar with her family history?
Rodiguez's response was, "yes, I knew her as a neighbor on the Pechanga reservation and know her family history very well."
The examiner follows up with the following:
"Having read and interpreted to you the deposition of Dolores Tortuga made on October 18, 1915, in which she related the family history of the deceased, will you please state whether she as given same fully and truly?"
Rodriguez's response was, "yes, she has given it right."
I will use another post and present some more evidence that shows we are Pechanga people and that we do meet the requirments for tribal membership in at least one more post.
SO I SAY AGAIN, DEAR READERS, WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, AN ANONYMOUS TRIBAL MEMBER WHO MAKES GENERAL STATEMENTS OR US WHO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD STAND UP IN A REAL COURT OF LAW?
Pechanga tribal chairman Mark Macarro said at a 2005 general membership meeting that we should listen to what respected tribal elders such as Antonio Ashman, called in the Pechanga tribe's official Web site a vaunted (much praised) tribal elder, had to say.
ReplyDeleteWell before his death Mr. Ashman gave a notarized statement affirming that we, the Hunters, are in fact Pechanga people.
Mr. Ashman said when he was asked, "did you know or were acqainted with Paulina Hunter as a member of the Band?"
Ashman's response was, "yes, I knew her as such."
Ashman was also asked, "She was called aunt by Martin Berdugo?"
Ashman answered, "yes, I remember that."
So Mr. Ashman not only affirmed that Paulina Hunter was a Pechanga Indian, he verified she was related to another recognized Pechanga Indian, Martin Berdugo.
A current Pechanga elder, one of seven who in our disenrollment case supported our memberhip (five turned in to the enrollment committee and two were turned into the tribal council during our appeal) also gave notarized testimony on behalf of our family in support of our tribal membership.
One of them is a direct desendant of original Pechanga tribal member and allottee Eduardo Garica but I will not give his name at this time as to not make him a target for the CPP, but I would be more than happy to present his deposition in a real court of law.
His testimony was listed in our Record of Decision but ignored by the enrollment committee so the CPP could find out who he is but why make it easier for them to target him?
Anyway, this current tribal elder said his family had always known the Hunters as being Pechanga and that his mother and grandmother had always told him this is true.
He also remembered how the grandson of Paulina Hunter, Edward Hunter, would give this tribal member's mother, rides to Pechanga when Mr.Hunter would visit Pechanga.
So this testimony, by the current Pechanga elder, makes it even more clear, the connection that our family has and always have had to our tribe, Pechanga.
'aamokat,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to write these facts down. Can you please contact me. My email address is CorbanAndrew@yahoo.com. I would like to talk to you further.
Best,
Andrew
Some more points to refute from our Anonymous "friend."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said, "Please know, Dear Reader, that tribes determine their own membership in their own forum. The Hunter family has been removed by a legitimate internal tribal procedure that had been used in earlier years, for a similar purpose. This procedure uses a simple due process."
1. Never before in the history of the tribe have entire family lines been wiped out by the stroke of the pen.
There have been isolated instances of disenrollments, ironically in 1989 some people were disenrolled for not being direct descendants of Manuela Miranda, who at that time was called an original Pechanga member by the enrollment committee, but all of whoose descendants were disenrolled in 2004.
2. What simple due process are you talking about?
Because allowing the same people who filed the disenrollment challenges against my family and who were directly related to most of the people who submitted the so called evidence against my family to rule on my family's fate despite the obvious conflict of interest, was hardly unbiased, fair and impartial and the last thing it afforded us was due process.
For about a at least a dozen times I have asked you, don't you believe the Pechanga Band's own constitution should be followed which clearly states in Article V that tribal officials are to uphold an individual tribal member's rights without malice or predjudice?
So how does allowing biased people, who were prejudiced against my family, to rule on my family's case not violate Article V of the Band's constitution?
I know you will say that all I am doing is arguing process but without a fair trial, then what you consider a foregone conclusion, has not been proven.
That was the problem, the people who ruled on our case already had their minds made up against us
Anonymous also said, "The non-members sometimes mention that Paulina Walla Hunter received Indian trust land -- an action the BIA now views as a mistake."
I know for a fact, and we have the Dept. of Interior documents to prove it, that even those Hunter family members who have had loved ones die recently, and who have gone through probate after the Hunters were disenrolled, still have official probate documents that refer to their deceased loved ones as Mission Indians (Pechanga Band).
So clearly the United States government still views us as Pechanga Indians even if our tribe offically does not.
Andrew, I am using other people's computers this week but I should have some difficulties I have been having with my home computer straightened out shortly and I will contact you.
Excellent thread!
ReplyDeleteAllen L. Lee
Dear Family,
ReplyDeleteaamokat has been able to rebute all that has said against the Hunter family. I think it is time to do more than blog back and forth.
Thank you anonymous of April 11, 2009, but I have hardly done this alone and you are right, it is time to take this information beyond this forum.
ReplyDeleteI will now give another example of the bias treatment my family, the Hunters, received in our disenrollment proceedings and still another violation of Article V of the Band's constitution against malice or predjudice of individual tribal members.
The enrollment committee declared that since a member of our extended family, John Miller, put San Luis Rey tribe on his 1928 application for enrollment as a California Indian that it means the San Luis Rey tribe is our true tribe, not Pechanga.
Well reportedly Maximinio Leyvas, a member of the Basquez/Masiel Clan, also put San Luis Rey on his 1928 enrollment application as a California Indian as did others who are still enrolled members of the Pechanga Band.
So why were the Basquez/Masiels cleared from disenrollment if they have the same information in their family history that was used as a reason for disenrolling us?
Back to Article V of the Band's constitution and malice or predujuce against my family.
The Basquez/Masiels would likely argue that Maximinio Leyvas is not their direct ancestor, that he was an uncle.
But I am not a direct descendant of John Miller but his 1928 application was still used against me in my disenrollment case.
Besides, as Dr. John Johnson points out in his letter to the tribal council objecting to our disenrollment, Pechanga people accross the board used the terms Pechanga, Temecula, and San Luis Rey interchangably.
This can be shown in my family as other Hunter family members put Pechanga on their 1928 applications.
Still more proof is the fact that the whole tribe was called Pechanga, Temecula, or Temecula- San Luis Rey Tribe in the various census records of the 1890s, depending on what year the census was taken.
So as Dr. Johnson pointed out in his letter to the tribal council, the terms were used synonymously.
The term Luiseno, which all true Pechanga people are, comes from them being Indians of the San Luis Rey Mission.
So the San Luis Rey reference by a member of our extended family means nothing except it shows total bias against my family when other tribal members have the same information in their family history including people who voted us out of the tribe!
So I will ask our anonymous tribal member "friend" again and I will keep on asking, why don't you support following the Pechanga constitution?
aamokat,
ReplyDeleteI think it is time for the BIA and Federal Goverment to be held accountable.
I will give just one more example of how the Pechanga tribe violataed the will of the General Membership, the final authority of tribal law, when they disenrolled the Hunters.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said, "Please know, Dear Reader, that tribes determine their own membership in their own forum. The Hunter family has been removed by a legitimate internal tribal procedure that had been used in earlier years, for a similar purpose. This procedure uses a simple due process."
The point is that under Article 1 of the petition that was justified by the General Membership on June 19, 2005 and passed into law on July 18, 2005d, stated that as of June 19, 2005 "the disenrollment Procedures are repealed."
So no tribal procedure, even if they had been used in previous years, existed as a part of tribal law to continue the case against the Hunters as of the date the petition was justified by the General Membership.
Also, under Article 4 of the petition that was justified on June 19, 2005 and passed into law on July 18, 2005 made it unlawful for the Enrollment Committee to investigate members for disenrollment purposes.
The Hunters were disenrolled on March 16, 2006 so any investigations the committee made regarding the Hunter family after the petition was passed into law in 2005 are be null and void.
The tribal council claimed on March 14, 2006 that the June 19, 2005 petition didn't specifically name the Hunters, who had been investitgated before that 2005 date, so they weren't covered by the new law.
However, if the disenrollment procedures no longer existed as a part of tribal law, then they couldn't have been followed after the 2005 date.
Ironic that even so, major steps of the disenrollment procedures were not even followed before the law outlawing disenrollments was passed.
For example, the enrollment committee never specifically stated why the documentation that was used to enroll us was lacking in proving tribal membership.
All we were given were copies of the letters and statements the CPP turned in against us and a list of certified or notarized documents to turn in but as has been stated previously, when we got the Record of Decision informing us we were kicked out of the tribe, there were additional items we never saw before that decison that we couldn't respond to as the deadline to turn in additional information on our behalf had passed.
Some of the above would be difficult to prove, particularly the points about the disenrollment procedures not being followed, as we were denied official copies of transcripts of any of the disenrollment proceedings.
So it was our word verses the committee's word that the procedures were not followed before the law outlawing the proceedures was justified by the General Membership.
There, the defense rests for now, at least as far as this poster is concerned, until our anonymous critic resurfaces with his dribble again after things have quieted down.
Be assured Aamokat that our antagonist the "anonymous poster" is well aware of the posts refuting his ridicules claims.His laughable and comical attempts at supporting the stance that his fellow CPP members have taken is a sad commentary on the state of affairs at Pechanga.
ReplyDeleteF pechanga leaders!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteu r wrong
spirits are shamed by u
ur actions r wrong
free ur people!!!!!
do the right thing
we r watching!!
DO U CARE ABOUT TRUE HISTORY ?
I wont gamble at Pechanga anymore because of what I have read at this site...I did go into Pechanga this weekend to see some old friends for dinner...I couldnt believe how many machines they have taken out of the Casino..I was told it was because they didnt want to pay the tax to the State Of California over the 2000 , so they took out hundreds of slots....you see huge areas of empty carpet....Arnold really made a crappy deal for California...you might know the tribe would find a way around the treaties...and the other thing that I noticed is that there are hardly any dollar machines left...just tons of pennie and nickel machines...and for a holiday weekend...it was hardly busy at all...so I bet soon they will either have to reduce per capita or kick out another large family!!
ReplyDeleteI love gambling at Pechanga, I am not a member of the tribe and I have no business getting involved in their matters. I do think that the disenrollments were TOTALLY justified and the tribe needs to make sure it has the right people accounted for. I noticed alot of hostility from non-members and they should use their energy on something more productive like creating their own tribe if they are the indians they allege to be here for the world to read and see. It's that simple. Figure it out. That's all i have to say.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous of April 15, 2009, we were not given fair and impartial hearings, a violation of the tribe's own constitution, and the evidence that supports our case for Pechanga tribal membership is much stronger than the hearsay so called evidence presented against us.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the enrollment committee acknowledged we have a land patent as Temecula Indians and even in the Record of Decision against us they commented that they were not making a determination on our status as Native Americans just, wrongly I believe, that we are not Pechanga Indians.
Don't you think that if their was any shread of evidence that we are not even Indians that they would have stated this in their conclusions in the Record of Decision?
So yes we are the Indians we claim we are.
So the only thing you have to say is that it is none of your business to get involved in tribal affairs.
Point noted I suppose but how does that justify what happened to us and how does it feel to spend money at a business that is owned by a tribe that violated our rights?
There, no anger shown here by me, just facts!
Does anybody really believe that that is a non-tribal member that wrote that fluff piece above?..if they arent a member of the tribe than how the hell would they know it was justified?..and why is it ever justified ?..they used you members when they needed you for support in getting the Casino...and for years you were on the government lists as members ..so why now kick you out?..oh yeah...PER CAPITA...plain and simple...and what an ignorant statement to make..if they feel its not any of their business...why even write the letter....everyone knows it waqs written by a tribal member thats still getting that nice check each month!!....look-out...things will soon be changing in CALFORNIA!!!
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous of April 15th,
ReplyDeleteNow let me get this straight, you are not a tribal member but you like to gamble at Pechanga and you have an opinion on their tribal disenrollment, you agree with it. And you visited this sight and read through ALL these comments just B E C A U S E...I know a lot of brain power left with the stupidity of the tribal council and the enrollment committee disenrolling the two families. I wonder which one you belong to?
To; gambling at Pechanga
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "creating their own tribe if they are the IndiansThe problem with this is that the BIA recognizes us as Pechanga Indians already, How are we to create our own tribe if we are already federally recognized as Pechanga Indians.
You wrote: "I noticed alot of hostility"
Sure there is a lot of hostility, Just how do you think we should react but angry at thousands of years of history being wiped out by the stroke of a pen. How would you feel and react if your family had been struggling for hundreds and even thousands of years, both during hard times and good times with there tribe, to have all erased by some pencil pushers.
You wrote: "I do think that the disenrollments were TOTALLY justified"
You are free to think anyway you want to. You can also think that the world is flat, but that doesn't make it a correct assumption. I won't try to change your mind.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteApril 15, 2009 3:10 AM
"they should use their energy on something more productive like creating their own tribe if they are the indians they allege to be..."
The U.S. only recognizes Indian nations from an historical context. Two points of relevance regarding your statement, one is recognition, the other is self determination.
If the Pechanga dis-enrollees had decided to secede from the Pechanga Nation of their on self-determined volition and start their own tribe because they did not have historical ties, or perhaps felt they no longer had even contemporary ties with the current recognized Pechanga nation, then your statement of the dis-enrollees starting their own tribe would make sense. The dis-enrollees have proven both historical recognition and contemporary recognition by both other tribe members and the U.S..
Unless they asked for a separate recognition their is no need for them to form their own separate tribe. That is the component of self-determination. the dis-enrollees have made it clear that their sovereign powers of self-determination still lie with the recognized Pechanga Nation, not a proposed new tribe/nation.
The same talk occurs with the Cherokee Freedmen Descendants. Why don't they just go off and be African-Americans or form their own Freedmen Descendant band of Cherokees separate from the "Real Indians." Initially their was no contemporary self-determined act by the Cherokee Freedmen Descendants to secede from the current Cherokee Nation, though the idea has been entertained by Black activist interested in Black racial sovereignty. For me as an African-American, that is a dangerously regressive slope returning to Jim Crow. The point being that the Cherokee dis-enrollees did not ask to secede, like the the Delaware and Shawnee Cherokee have, but assert a full historical and contemporary recognition as Cherokee Nationals, even if they aren't "Real Indians."
I don't recall talk of Freedmen Descendants starting their own separate band of Cherokees during the "Lucy Allen Case" though the 1866 treaty may actually provide for such a remedy if the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma refuses to recognize them as equals.
Again, to me that would be an unfortunate regression in race politics.
At least you showed up to speak your mind. Nothing will get resolved if no one talks.
Allen L. lee
The point is the federal government still recongizes my family as being Pechanga Indians.
ReplyDeleteBecause direct descendants of Paulina Hunter who recently had a loved one pass away, and who have gone through probate hearings after the Hunters disenrollment in 2006, have official Dept. of Interior probate documents that call their recently deceased Hunter family members Mission Indians (Pechanga Band).
Clearly the United States government still considers us as being Pechagna Indians even if our tribe officially now does not.
Add on the fact that even the Pechanga enrollment committee acknowledged in the Record of Decision in our disenrollment case that we have a land patent from the U.S. government as Temecula Indians.
Besides the recognition from the probate hearings, the BIA identified myself as a Pechanga Indian many many years before even being recognized officially by my tribe. I have been enrolled as California Indian under Act off Sept 1968 and named on the California Judgment Fund Roll of California Indians as a Temecula/Pechanga Indian years before being officially enrolled by my Tribe.
ReplyDeleteLuiseno said...
ReplyDelete"Besides the recognition from the probate hearings, the BIA identified myself as a Pechanga Indian many many years before even being recognized officially by my tribe. I have been enrolled as California Indian under Act off Sept 1968 and named on the California Judgment Fund Roll of California Indians as a Temecula/Pechanga Indian years before being officially enrolled by my Tribe."
Your enrollment number for the 1968judgement roll doesn't name you as a Pechanga Indian.
It verifies that you are a California Indian but it doesn't specify a tribe.
I know, because I too have a roll number as a California Indian and a tribe is not listed.
I am of the non federally recognized San Luis Rey tribe and like the people who have been disenrolled from Pechanga, we are Luiseno people.
But we never have benefited from Indian gaming.
At least you folks got to get something for a while.
Believe me, I do feel for my disenrolled Pechanga brothers and sisters.
But what has anybody ever done to help us?
True that the 1968 judgement roll doesn't name you as a Pechanga Indian, but when I queered the BIA at the time about services, they identified my tribe as Temecula/Pechanga.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous of April 17, 2009, I think you are probably the person I met at the library who I told about this site as I did recently meet someone from the San Luis Rey tribe and I told him about what happened to us regarding our disenrollment.
ReplyDeleteI understand your frustration, and we do feel for your plight, and yes we are your Luiseno brothers and sisters.
Realize that less than 10 percent of California Indians have benefited from gaming and we did benefit from it in the past but now you and us are in the same boat.
I am not positive about this, but it wouldn't surprise me if Pechanga has tried to block your tribe's federal recognition.
They wouldn't want another federally recognized tribe near their market that might at some point have a casino of their own.
Anyway, if you are the person I met, I hope I see you again and we have a chance to discuss these issues further.
Luiseno (the poster here) is correct, the BIA did refer to us as Pechanga before we had tribal membership and they still do so, as I said in my last post, in probate documents.