Open Letter to Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro
Dear Mr. Chairman,
For over a decade, you have been in the lead of the tribal council of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Indians. During that time you have helmed the disenrollment of 25% of your membership, making the tribe the second worst violator of civil and human rights, behind only the Picayune Rancheria of Coarsegold.
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 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 “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 “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", 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 and the will of the people?
Will you, Mr. Chairman take credit for expanding the Termination Era of Native Americans in California?
Will you, Mr. Chairman take credit for expanding the Termination Era of Native Americans in California?
There is still time to reverse this terrible injustice. Lead the tribe back to peace. Your ancestor Martin Berdugo called mine “Aunt”. Our vaunted elder, Antonio Ashman SWORE to this. Bring the family together, including your own, whom you keep out of the tribe.
Just looking at your article, noticed you have a place for "Terminated Tribes in California" why not all "Terminated Tribes..???"
ReplyDeleteOranna B. Felter
Terminated Uinta Band Member of the
Ute Indian Tribe of Utah # 32
The Hunter clan ancestor Paulina Walla Hunter did not come from Pechanga, and neither did her mother, Eulalia Clift, or her father, Mateo Walla. Nobody knows their ancestry. The BIA has no Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood for PWH. The BIA never tracked PWH as an Indian. BIA probate records for PWH show that a few Pechanga people knew PWH as a neighbor, but not as an Indian. The BIA probated the estate of PWH because she owned tribal trust land -- property mistakenly allotted to her, likely via fraud. Back in the 1950s, a lineal descendant of PWH, Emily Hunter Judkins, wrote a letter to the BIA asking how she could become a member of Pechanga. This descendant wrote this letter at a time when Pechanga functioned solely by oral tradition (and without any paperwork) in determining its membership, and used lineal descent as its central criteria. This letter admits lack of Pechanga membership for a lineal descendant for PWH, and thus by reasonable inference, an observer may conclude that PWH lacked recognition as a Pechanga tribal member. No available birth record exists for PWH. The authority the Hunter clan offers up today in its defense never addressed these matters; hence, he issued a seriously flawed report. In addition, the present-day Hunter clan lies to itself by closing its eyes to these matters. The Hunter clan instead attacks Pechanga tribal leadership, Pechanga tribal government, and the Pechanga disenrollment process. Please know, Dear Reader, the Hunter clan lost its tribal membership because it did not have the facts on its side, and not for any other reason. The Hunter clan creates a falsity by arguing otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWe have already answered your tired arguments many times so if you promise to stay around this time instead of cutting and running like you always do, then we can have another round.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I am sure time permitting, I will take on this hack one more time.
New and recent readers of this blog, go to the archives and you will see the same statements our anonymous critic is presenting here and our answers to his balony.
The record of decision from the enrollment committee does not have any resemblance to your post.
ReplyDeleteThe questions you bring up have been settled by our enrollment committee, and the supporting certified, and or notarized documents submitted to the enrollment committee as per there request.
The record of decision was based on the fact that our elders used San Luis Rey tribe on their 1928 application. Somehow this made our common ancestor Paulina Hunter a non-Pechanga.
The probate records you bring up are certified, and they go into great detail of the Hunter family. These certified depositions are public record and all support the fact that she was a recognized Pechanga/Temecula Indian. Even the enrollment committee did not dispute the fact she was Indian. The record of decision says she is not of Pechanga descent. Clearly a mistake and anyone looking at the certified notarized depositions clearly sees error in the enrollment committee’s view.
Antonio Ashman gave sworn statement the Paulina Hunter was a recognized Pechanga Person. He is a pillar of Pechanga, and was alive during the Temecula eviction. An elder who clearly knew the History of Pechanga.
This is how you respect your elders buy posting your poison
We will be glad to provide these documents per people’s request.
Descendents of Paulina Hunter:
ReplyDelete100 descentents removed from Pechanga 2006. Descendents put "San Lius Rey Tribe" on 1928 California Application.
Three people voted to remove these families, and they descend from ancestors with the this information from there 1928 Application
Salazar, Petronilla ---San Luiseno 1. Frances Miranda
Leyva, Maximinio ----Mission- San Luis Rey
2. Ruth Masiel
3. Irene Scearce
Fair and impartial is what the Bylaws say.
Temecula Band of Mission Indians
The above people have ancestors who used the reference "San Luis Rey" on their 1928 applications. If these people have the same information as the Hunters on there 1928 applications, why were these people disenrolled when they were brought into question by the Pechanga people?
ReplyDeleteFair amd impartial? I think not.
A birth record for a Indian born in the early 1800's? Are you serious? You know nothing if Indian history.
ReplyDeleteWhy did the Pechanga people not dispute Paulina Hunters allottment after the reservation was created. Why did tribal elders not dispute the fact of her allottment during their depostions?
1800's-2006 the Hunters were recognized members od Pechanga. Clearly documented and recorded history.
the member inside is spreading dissent AND lies among us because we grow stronger than ever stand and fight to unite
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to correct something in the post above from "Descendents of Paulina Hunter:"
ReplyDeleteFrances Miranda's ancestor was Roberta Salazar not Petronilla Salazar. Petronilla was Roberta's sister.
Ruth Masiel and Irene Scearce's ancestor was Francesca Leyva not Maxininio. Maxininio was Francesca's brother.
End result would be the same, as in the Hunter case. The Ancestors of the Hunters were not in the same famile line.
ReplyDeleteDear Mz Jenny,(above anonymous),The letter that you keep refering to here and at Tribal Meetings written by Hunter decendant, Emily Judkins, who was the acting Tribal Secretary at that time. She was already an enrolled member of the Temecula/Pechanga Tribe. She was requested to write that letter for the excisting Tribal Council to the BIA in behalf of your family because your family & others of the then Splinter Group kept disrupting our Tribal meetings at the Old School House demanding that you be made members even though you had no certified records of being Temecula or Pechanga Indians. We wanted to help you but we didn't know what to do since we always obeyed all our Tribal Laws(Not like you who always BREAK THEM). You know what I am saying is TRUE don't you!
ReplyDeleteIts time to hurt these people where it will hurt the most..in the pocketbook..if you know of any tribal members that are breaking the tax laws..TURN THEM IN...they didnt mind robbing you of what is morally yours, its time to fight back...they pay rewards for tax collected...since you were part of the tribe before, you must know some secrets that they wouldnt want to be known...wake up..they are not going to change or ever help you on their own.
ReplyDeleteThe anonmymous #2 wouldn't know what the Hunters had, as the enrollment committee matters are confidential.
ReplyDeleteNow, the honest people of the disenrollment committee wouldn't talk out of turn would they?
If the anonymous person signed their name people would be more apt to take something into consideration. But because those who hide, Fear. Now ask yourself what that person has to fear???
ReplyDeletesanjuanflorist
"BIA probate records for PWH show that a few Pechanga people knew PWH as a neighbor, but not as an Indian. The BIA probated the estate of PWH because she owned tribal trust land -- property mistakenly allotted to her, likely via fraud."
ReplyDeleteThe tribe had 25 years to dispute the allotments so if they believed we were not legitimate tribal members, then why didn't they dispute our allotment?
In addition, recognized Temecula Band tribal member Dolores Tortuga of the Pechanga reservation in the 1915 probate hearings for Paulina Hunter's land allotment gave notarized testitmony translated from the Luiseno language in which she states when 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's history?"
Tortuga anwsered, "Yes, I knew her as a neighbor when we Pechanga Indians lived on the Pauba Ranch near Temecula, California."
Clearly Tortuga was including Paulina in the inclusive "we Pechanga Indians"
Also, Antonio Ashman, called a vaunted (much praised) tribal elder on the official Pechanga tribal Website, said in notarized testimony taken before the first written enrollment of 1978 said when he was asked, "Did you know or were you aquainted with Paulina Hunter as a member of the Band?"
Mr. Ashman responded, "Yes, I knew her as such."
So since one of the ways listed in the supplement of the original enrollment application in 1978 to prove tribal membership was to have a recognized tribal member vouch for an applicants linage, we meet this requirment hands down.
And Ashman and Tortuga's testimony are not the only statements from tribal elders both from the historical period of the 1800's, as well as current tribal elders, that back up our claim of being legitimate tribal members.
So our anonymous critic's point about tribal elders just saying our ancestor was just a neighbor does not hold water.
Finally, I will make one more statement about recognition, which the above testimony on our behalf clearly is.
One of the biggest part of the case against us in our disenrollments was the testimony of tribal members, all from the CPP faction of the tribe, directly contradicted by testimony from other credible sources.
Well a Hunter family elder has her original date stamped approval letter from the enrollment committee welcoming her to the tribe and her original enrollment card and among the signatures on these official documents were none other than Vincent Ibanez (who signed her enrollment card), Raymond Basquez Sr, Ruth Masiel, and Francis Miranda.
What is the signficance of these committee members approving her membership, by the way before the casino was built?
Well years later when we were disenrolled all of these individuals either while still serving on the enrollment committee voted us out of the tribe or submitted statements against our tribal membership.
So what changed?
Can we say the casino was built?
I and others have answered our anonymous critic's other points at least several times so I am not going to go into them now as he will not come back and answer my arguments anyway as all he ever does is post the same old stuff and cut and run.
I think the testimony on our behalf I posted here on this post speaks for itself and like I said, it is not the only evidence that supports our position.
Of course Pechanga could take Antonio Ashman's name off of their official Website's recounting of the 1875 eviction and revise history just like they did when they removed Temecula chief Pablo Apish from the site just before some of his descendants were disenrolled.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Adolph Hitler who said if you tell a lie long enough people will start to believe it is the truth?"
But for now Mr. Ashman is still called a vaunted tribal elder on the tribe's site and he did testify on my family's behalf.
When we all had protest at Pechanga yolanda tried to run over me in her suv but the temecula sheriff did nothing She met me a few times before at the doctors office she had the same one she told me a lot of tribal information then before she found out who I was. she and her family ordered Banishment that day JOE LISKA was Banished, they all pointed to him and said you are Banished ,YOLIE what comes around goes around and you will be held accountable for being evil hey tribal council maybe you should question her about speaking tribal internal matters to people she does not know,remember -Eastern Cherokee band POLYSQWALIS
ReplyDeleteMy responds to Anonymous April 21 6:17. You spout off on how the committee looked at all the fact but failed to point facts they didn’t use. There’s the Dr Jonson report that they paid for then there’s Antonio Ashman statement. Francisca Leyva now there’s a family that has no proof of a connection to Pechanga or of being Indian other then fraud and falsifying documentation. Could it be that you keep spouting out recognition is because that you are from the Leyva line. Now with no actual proof or real documentation of being a true Temecula Valley Indian recognition is the easiest way to bribe and con your way in.
ReplyDeleteWe need to hurt them financially like they are hurting ex-tribal memebers...how many are living off of the reservation yet not paying State tax?...that is called tax evasion and it is criminal and they will be charged and fined..you alone know who is breaking the laws..do something about it..TURN THEM IN!!!... how about the Chief??...does he pay his State taxes since he lives off the reservation??...isnt that what the Chief at Saboba got charged with??...Im sure you can bring him down...thank god we dont have to see his stupid face on TV commercials lately...easy to see a phoney on TV.
ReplyDeletewhen can he be voted out? MM?
ReplyDeleteSOON!when the true members come forward and put a stop to his oppression and cruelty corruption
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Dr. John Johnson's report on the Hunter family ancestry, called flawed by our opponent, simply clarified our position of being true tribal members so we proved who we are even without it.
ReplyDeleteThe eye witness testimony from elders from the historical period of the late 1800's given during the probate for Paulina Hunter's land allotment and before the first written enrollment application of 1978 as well as from elders not from the CPP faction of the tribe is consise legal evidence that should have answered any questions any reasonable people may have had.
And this legal testimony is backed up by the census records of the time.
But back to the questions as to Paulina's parents, Dr. Johnson does indentify Paulina's parents as Mateo Quasicac, who by the way is the only Indian listed in the Pardrones, the censuses of the early 1800s conducted by the San Luis Rey Mission, who was actually born at the place called Pechanga and Hilaria Nesecat whose mother Restituta was born in the Temecula Indian village.
Dr. Johnson explains that even though Paulina's marriage record to Thomas Gordon Hunter in the 1860s listed her last name as Walla that accross the board the Mission Indians of the period had various last names from generation to generation until one name stuck as a name to be passed on to future generations.
So other families could be questioned, in fact our anonymous critic likely had the same problem tracing his linage, on the basis of different last names from the past as well.
The different first name of Paulina's mother, was it Eualia or Hilaria?, can also be explained.
Likely the priest making Paulina's marriage entry wrote down Eualia, a common name for Indian women of he region from the period, when he translated the name Hilaria into Spanish as the pronuciations are similar.
Back to Paulina's father, Antonio Ashman in his depostition in support of our tribal membership prior to the first written enrollment testified that he remebered that Paulina was related to Michaela Quilich (Quilig), who was the daughter of Mateo Quasicac through a different mother.
So that would make Paulia and Michaela half sisters.
I will continue my treatment of our critic's assertions on another post.
Our anonymous critic claims that we don't have Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) and that Hunter family matriarch was never tracked as an Indian by the BIA.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we the descendants of Paulina Hunter do have CDIBs and our probate records, even those whose probate for their deceased loved ones that have as gone through after our disenrollment, have official probate documents that list our loved ones as Mission Indians (Pechanga Band).
So we have legal docments proving our case while our opponent(s) just make hearsay statements.
Again Gentle Readers who do you believe, them who have no proof or us who have proof.
In closing, we have answered our critic's questions many times, just check the archives here, but know that it is unlikely he will stay around for more discussion as he will wait to come back and make his hearsay statements again after these posts are off the front page of this blog.
P.S. if our critic is from the Basquz/Masiel family line, they have a lot more gaps in their family history than any other family so is it any coincidence that they are the ones who led the charge and continue to lead the charge against true Temecula Pechanga people?
By the way the Basquez/Masiel family line claim their membership through Francisca Leyvas, who another poster here also points out has very questionable ties to the original Temecula Pechanga Indians.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives them the right to claim they know who the true people are when they likely can't prove it themselves?
What ever happened to the head of Finance that recntly got arrested?.you know he knows some secrets abou MM and his finances in the tribe...what do you bet he is singing like a canary right now?..maybe there will be another Chief arrested??
ReplyDeleteSo anonymous tribal member who says we the disenrolled were afforded due process of law tell us how that is when close family members of people who submitted and/or signed statements against our membership were allowed to rule on our disenrollment cases?
ReplyDeleteThat alone would be grounds for dismissal in any fair court of law and not only that, it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Band's own constitution, Article V, which forbids malice or predjudice against indivdual tribal members.
And even if the disenrollment procedures did exist as a part of tribal law at the time of our, the Hunters, disenrollment, which they did not, the case was never presented against us until the Record of Decision but even then the enrollment committee's reasoning was vague.
So how again was the process fair and impartial?
Don't just give general statements but answer my questions this time.
Gentle Readers, all our opponents have are general statements not backed up by facts and the old stand by, the tribe is a sovereign nation and it is an internal affair and that is it.
The entire so called case against us was similar to the posts made by our anonymous critic(s)here on this blog, which we have answered many times, plus other statements by elders from the CPP faction saying we have never been recognized as tribal members.
ReplyDeleteBut as I have pointed out, those same people who either voted us out of the tribe while still on the enrollment committee in 2006 or who submitted statements against our membership but had signed date stamped approval letters welcoming Hunter family members to the tribe when they were first enrolled years ago or signed our enrollment cards.
So, as I said, if we had never been recognized as members of the tribe, then why sign our documents and enrollment cards in the first place.
So critic, again how was due process followed?