We've discussed the fight that Joe Liska, son of Fred Magee, has been bringing to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians' Tribal Council. Joe has a court date on Monday August 30, at 10:00 a.m. in San Diego.
The Pechanga Tribal Council was ordered by the court THREE times to go to a settlement conference, refusing to comply with a judge's order. They did finally show up, with Tribal Council head Mark Macarro attending, as did Andrew Masiel. Needless to say, there was no settlement and thus, a court hearing.
Judge Porter DID have concerns about the moratorium and tribes stating they are not enrolling and we know that they HAVE enrolled family members of Bobbi LeMere. Adult members is what seemed like a payback for voting to disenroll the Hunter family.
Mr. Liska argued that it is a breach of trust obligation to the true Temecula Indians, for which the reservation was created. He was able to bring forward that Russell "Butch" Murphy is NOT a true Pechanga Indian, and that the courts must intervene in the breach of trust issue.
In this matter, Joe Liska is acting as his own lawyer, going up against three Pechanga attorneys.
Please pass this post on to your friends. Good Luck Joe, hopefully, you can get past this round and be able to call witnesses. Might I suggest Ruth Masiel she could explain WHY she took the word of a convicted child molestor? It would be comical to get her to point out WHICH passages of the record of decisions in the Manuela Miranda and Hunter family cases she was responsible for.
There was a few questions about the new judge(porter)she was assigned for the settlement hearing only,she will be involved in another hearing if this case moves foward.
ReplyDeleteThe second question was what about the U.S attorney?
The motion was filed for them to represent me,if this civil complaint does not move foward it does not stop the criminal complaint with the U.S attorney.
The tribes attorneys 3 against 1 argue (private right of action)when it comes to 241 conspiracy against rights,,,,,,this is bull crap the courts have ruled time and time again there is no private right of action under 241.
Clark and rawley of the chippawa tribe tried to invoke santa clara and private right of action (but it did not fly)they did prison time 4 or 5 years.
FURTHERMORE arresting someone for 241 (felony conspiracy)violates no tribal customs or treaties (thats why they went to prison)!!!
These will be brought up in the oral argument monday,see you there if you can make.
Conspiracy to defraud? What is trying to be shown here?
ReplyDeleteHow many conspiracy counts would there be? For Liska alone or his children too?
Joe we pray for you, this is a hard case you are fighting for yourself but you are not alone. It's time to end Tribal corruption for all.
ReplyDeleteI would love to go to the hearing on the 30th of August. If there is anyone in the Beaumont area that is going please let me know I can help pay for gas.
ReplyDeleteThe section 241 is conspiracy against rights ,fraud is another charge ,also voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteAs far as how many counts?WELL how victims? How many suspects? In conspiracy if you have knowledge of what is going on ,Yes your part of of now!
This is really something huge,its all been coming for awhile,to large to look the other way now (we all know what they were doing)stealing money and trying to retain control of the tribe.
Its a little to late to say (oh I was not part of that)or (I told them not to do that).
THE judge looked at the council like they were smoking (CRACK)why is there a FRICKEN 14 YEAR freeze on enrollment????
OH WE ALL VOTED AS A WHOLE(so you all voted to defraud people)?????
WTF ????
sorry on the spelling,,,,computer sucks,,,you get the point,,,
ReplyDeleteI Believe War Pony will Succeed in Bringing out the truth for all we must attend Hearing to show the federal justice system many victims of conspiracy and Fraud of enrollment ,disenrollment stolen tribe,etc corruption.WE MUST GO TO HEARING
ReplyDeleteSTAND STRONG AND UNITE
POLYSQWALIS
So now the entire tribe could be part of the conspiracy, since they all benefitted from it?
ReplyDeleteI believe failure of the United States to assert criminal jurisdiction over activity on a reservation when the tribal government no longer operates legitimately would be an abrogation of the U.S. government's trustee relationship with tribes such as Pechanga So people may be prosecuted in federal court under § 241 because such conspiracy encompassed a violation of the ICRA, a law of the United States.
ReplyDeleteMacarro and the then Tribal Council overruled the will of the people. That in itself should prove the conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteMurphy was already involved in a conspiracy to split the tribe.
The tribal enrollment committee was involved in a conspiracy to keep the Manuela Mirandas out, the Hunters out and the Tosobols out. The quid pro quo for Bobbi LeMere's family should prove that.
I'm a little confused. Tribes do have the right to determine their membership requirements; the DOI and BIA will tell you that. So how have they committed conspiracy? I understand why you are saying what they did is wrong, it's just legally if they can determine their membership requirements and then determine you don't meet them, how is that conspiracy? I think the agreement could be that they committed fraud in the review of the disenrollments, but they can just argue they used oral traditions.
ReplyDeleteThe tribal council allowed the enrollment committee to rule on families out of the order that the challenges came in. That way, certain families were able to maintain their position on the enrollment committee while the other families in question would not have their representative vote.
ReplyDelete"Macarro and the then Tribal Council overruled the will of the people. That in itself should prove the conspiracy."
ReplyDeleteThat is very true as the people voted to outlaw disenrollment on July 17, 2005, that every tribal member as of the justification date of the petition of the proposed law, which was June 19, 2005, would remain tribal members.
Chairman Mark Macarro, when the petition was being debated by the General Membership, said in response to questions that it included every current tribal member, "all means all" and this was concurred by the tribal attorney present who said that the vote of the people on this matter would be legal.
When we, the descendants of Paulina Hunter, were disenrolled on March 16, 2006 the disenrollment procedures didn't even exist as a part of tribal law.
We were called into the enrollment committee during the period of June 6, 2005 to June 10, 2005 to have our initial meeting regarding our possible disenrollment and we were given 30 days to turn in a list of certified or notarized documents and we were told that a final decision concerning our disenrollment would not be made until after that 30 day period.
So since the end of the 30 day period to turn in paperwork was after the June 19, 2005 justifcation date any decisions to disenroll us are null and void.
So how again resident tribal hack did we get due process?
I still waiting for you to explain it.
P.S. Also, how Mr. Macarro can you now justify the fact that you yourself said it would be legal for all disenrollments to stop if the petition to outlaw disenrollment was passed, which it was?
I think your confused,lets see ,you have a family of whales (killer whales) along come a group of goldfish,the goldfish take over the bay.
ReplyDeleteThe goldfish shoot at the whales with guns and refuse to let the rest of the whales into the bay that is theirs.
The goldfish tell the rest of the fish in the sea ,(butt out)we know were not killer whales but were taking over the bay.
The goldfish say if you don,t like it we will shoot you? WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE OUR OWN SCHOOL OF FISH AND TAKE OVER WHAT IS NOT ARE'S.
1.Your right the tribe has the right to determine who's part of their tribe (PULLING FROM THE POOL OF TEMECULA INDIANS).
2.Your sadley mistaken if you think you can be adopted into a tribe (when your not a temecula indian) and then take over the tribe and make your own rules and say (WE DETERMINE WHOS A MEMBER OF ARE TRIBE)
QUOTE FROM ABOVE
it's just legally if they can determine their membership requirements and then determine you don't meet them, how is that conspiracy?
PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE IF YOU ARE NOT TEMECULA INDIAN YOU CANNOT DETERMINE ANYTHING (CONSPIRACY)
Anonymous said of August 26, 2010 10:24 AM said:
ReplyDelete"I'm a little confused. Tribes do have the right to determine their membership requirements; the DOI and BIA will tell you that. So how have they committed conspiracy? I understand why you are saying what they did is wrong, it's just legally if they can determine their membership requirements and then determine you don't meet them, how is that conspiracy? I think the agreement could be that they committed fraud in the review of the disenrollments, but they can just argue they used oral traditions."
It is conspriracy because they didn't even follow their own laws but the problem so far as been that, because of sovereignty, if they choose not to go by their own rule of law, who can make them so so?
Also, the tribal officials don't claim oral tradition in the decision against us as they cited written procedures and "supposed due process."
But is it legal, according to their own rules, when the sisters and other close relatives of people who submitted and/or signed statements against our tribal membership were allowed to rule on our disenrollment case?
No it isn't legal as the
Band's own constitution and bylaws under Article V forbids malice or predjudice of tribal members.
I think were getting a bit off TRACK this is a banishment law suit,and this is whats up!
ReplyDelete1.Does joe liska meet the detention requirements? (in the first ruling he did not)
2.Joe Liska is using the JEFFRADO case in his defense this time.
3.There is some strong points in that case that were given to non tribal rolls people. The tribe can,t use santa clara,this ruling was given to private citizens.
4.The judge asked the disenrolled were you excluded for ever,were you restricted in movement? (THE BIG THING HERE IS THIS RULING WAS GIVEN TO NON MEMBERS)
joe said...
ReplyDelete"I think were getting a bit off TRACK this is a banishment law suit,and this is whats up!"
This is true that this paticular case is about the banishment but on the whole the tribe's behaivor shows a pattern over the years that does all tie together.
Correct and I really don,t want to call it a banishment case ,its a case of people who are not pechanga or temecula indian who have taken over the tribe and are stealing money from the casino and are raping people of their heritage (plain and simple).
ReplyDeleteWell I hope you're right and it causes the tribe to have to open the moratorium. I do agree that there are a lot of things the tribe did wrong involved in the disenrollment processes, I wasn't implying that I agree with their actions or the results. I just wonder if conspiracies charges would actually hold up.
ReplyDeleteJoe did bring up a good point that this discussion is really about banishment. I do have one question for Joe, are you seeking to simply have your banishment nullified or is there more to the case? If there’s more to it, are you seeking damages from the tribe or the individuals on council?
Sorry, Joe's post answered my questions, in my last post.
ReplyDeleteWOW, good luck and stay strong. I wish I could be there.
ReplyDeletesanjuanflorist
This is a good question!!!!!!
ReplyDeletequote
If there’s more to it, are you seeking damages from the tribe or the individuals on council?
1.yes I am seeking punitive damages and for pain and suffering.
2.moral question,,,do you think its ok to stop me from praying at my fathers gravesite just for the hell of it?
3.as stated in my law suit,is that reckless behavior to send men in dark clothing to surround my house ,pound on doors,enter my carport place or tamper with my vehicles placing banishment letters,scare my family,(I WAS NOT HOME)it appeared to be a home envasion,my neighbor dan said they parked around the corner and moved silently on foot.
4.WTF are you doing leaving the pechanga rez driving 400 miles to az and screwing with my house?
I would agree that anyone who has business on the rez and is not causing a problem should be allowed on the rez. It is a closed rez so there are some limitations but I think you should be allowed to visit all tribe owned/controlled property if you can prove your heritage.
ReplyDeleteQuestion about this post “Correct and I really don,t want to call it a banishment case ,its a case of people who are not pechanga or temecula indian who have taken over the tribe and are stealing money from the casino and are raping people of their heritage (plain and simple).” Can the court do anything to correct this? Could the court remove people from the tribe who can’t prove their line, like the masiel/basquez and Murphy families? Does your case really address these issues?
The case does address these issues,,,how ever this is a banishment case,,,no the court can,t remove people from the tribe ,but the u.s attorney can send people to prison for breaking laws.
ReplyDeleteI do believe without a doubt if one goes to prison, others will think twice before doing someone wrong (don,t you agree)?
Any chance that Pechanga will settle before the court hearing? All they have to say is : Joe isn't banished anymore, right?
ReplyDeleteNot a chance,They are going to trash anyone ,even if it means violating rights or criminal crap,,,,,
ReplyDeleteSomeone mentioned basquez,this is james fletchers family,are they not able to produce ties to pechanga?
ReplyDeleteI need to know this asap for my hearing ?????
WELL I THINK I GOT MY ANSWER,james fletcher a tribal member of pechanga(NOT REALLY PECHANGA)used his position as a federal employee and covered up all the crime on pechanga ,,,stone walling all real blood from coming into the tribe?
ReplyDeleteTELL ME THIS THIS IS NOT TRUE!
someone respond !!!!!!!!!!!!!
ITS OK,YOUR AFRAID YOU DON'T WANT YOUR HOUSE TO GET SHOT AT,,,,,
ReplyDeleteWhite buffalo Ican give you a ride I live in Beaumont. By the stater bros on beaumont ave get a hold of me at Lorene20 @ verizon . net
ReplyDeleteTosobal family member
4.WTF are you doing leaving the pechanga rez driving 400 miles to az and screwing with my house?
ReplyDeleteCrossing state lines give FBI jurisdiction!
"Someone mentioned basquez,this is james fletchers family,are they not able to produce ties to pechanga?
ReplyDeleteI need to know this asap for my hearing ?????"
James Fletcher is from the Ibanez family not Basquez, and the Ibanez family is from Pechanga. There have been many stories on here about the Masiel/Basquez family not being Pechanga. They are the ones who added names to the 1940 census of people that were born long after 1940. There have also been documents posted on here that prove they are not connected to the Pechanga Indian they claim to be connected to. The whole reason families got disenrolled was because the basquez family had 3 familiy members on the enrollment committee, Ruth, Jennie, and Irene.
Ok here's the info for your hearing: Fletcher-Ibanez clan. Basquez/Masiel-Frauds, non-Pechanga. Murrphy-Fraud, non-Pechanga. Macarro-Fraud, that's right...non-Pechanga! It's very easy to prove, just go to the archives. Oh wait...Macarros removed (stoled) their files from archives, but there's enough info there to prove it!
ReplyDeleteFletcher -ibanez fraud?? Irene falsified doc's I was told in the BIA office.
ReplyDeleteThis would make sense why fletcher refused to give me my CIB,
Does anyone know what tribe fletcher is really from?
ONE PERSON SAID HE IS PECHANGA ANOTHER SAID NO?
did I mis-read that ,was that the ibanez family member speaking of fraud?
ReplyDeleteno I'm not a person from the ibanez family. However, fletchers are part of the ibanez family who are from Pechanga.
ReplyDeleteIrene is part of the Basquez family and is assumed to be the person that added the fraudulent "additions" page to the 1940 census.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I think it would not be a good idea to say that Fletcher is not Pechanga because we don't know for sure that he is not.
ReplyDeleteThe 1979 list of enrollment lists the Fletchers as having the line from Ibanez-Contreras-Guavish and there are names on the old census records from the late 1800's with those names on them.
As far as the Macarros, there is evidence that they can't claim tribal membership through the male Macarro line as Juan Macarro was from Pauma but it appears that they could claim through his last wife Isabel Tapia (the female side of their family).
So again we don't know for sure if they are not legitimate.
Creeper told me a couple of months ago that you wanted to talk to me but I didn't hear from you but I seem to remember seeing your name on facebook so I will request you as a friend there and maybe we can talk from there.
Also I disagree with you about the Macarro family; Juan Macarro is on a ton of the census records, all the way back to the first Pechanga census of 1888.
ReplyDeleteThey should be called the dirty dozen,,,,,,
ReplyDeleteI have sign that I want to place on the sidewalk (free standing)at the hearing (last chance)
ReplyDeleteLETS VOTE HERE,,,,,1 vote for signs
go to pechanga .info to see signs
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Also I disagree with you about the Macarro family; Juan Macarro is on a ton of the census records, all the way back to the first Pechanga census of 1888."
The marriage record of Juan Macarro to Isabel (Kengish)Tapia says that in 1894 he had been a resident of Pechanga for 16 years but that he was originally from Pauma.
The marriage entry is from the San Luis Rey Mission records.
My ancestor Paulina Hunter was on at least seven of the census records for the Pechanga reservation for the late 1800's and she, like Juan Macarro, was given an allotment but a slim majority said that wasn't good enough.
So what is good for the "goose is good for the gander."
add on to my last post, it was a slim majority on the enrollment committee in 2006 who voted to disenroll us after the people had voted in 2005 to outlaw disenrollment.
ReplyDeleteSo it wasn't a slim majority of the people who supported our disenrollment.
Ok, I have two points: First, part of your argument of why Paulina Hunter is Pechanga is that she was on a lot the census records. Second, all families have some information that lists slightly different missions, tribes, etc. We should look at the fact that a majority of the information lists Juan Macarro as Pechanga; just the same as we should look at the fact that a majority of the information that lists Paulina Hunter as Pechanga.
ReplyDeleteOur discussion has to be “do most facts point to Pechanga”? If they do then we have to conclude that these individuals are Pechanga. We can sit around playing the game the enrollment committee did, which is only look at the evidence that disproves the connection. Our whole argument is we want the tribe to be the “true Pechanga Temecula Indians”. With that being said do you have numerous documents listing Juan Macarro as being from Pauma, or just one?
I said Juan Macarro wasn't Pechanga as the marriage record is pretty clear evidence he himself was from Pauma however, it appears that Macarros alive today could claim through the female side of their family, Isabel (Kengish) Tapia, Juan's last wife.
ReplyDeleteSince they only have to show lineal descent from an original tribal member the fact that Juan wasn't from there doesn't matter as far as tribal membership goes.
Ironic that there is evidence that Isabel was from the same clan as Paulina so they are in and we are out?
But if Juan had children from an earlier marriage and their female ancestor wasn't Pechanga, then those descendants of Juan would not be Pechanga.
If macarro was from tapia his name would be tapia!!!!!!
ReplyDeletehis name is mark macarro and he comes from the juan macarro blood line !!!!!
his great grandfather is probably juan macarro don,t make so hard!!!!
vote 1 for signs,yes
ReplyDelete"If macarro was from tapia his name would be tapia!!!!!!
ReplyDeletehis name is mark macarro and he comes from the juan macarro blood line !!!!!
his great grandfather is probably juan macarro don,t make so hard!!!!"
But bloodlines come from both the mother and the father so it isn't hard.
Besides, if Isabel Tapia married Juan Macarro, then her last name became Macarro so her descendants with Juan would have that last name but it would be her blood line that would make them tribal members.
Yes...keep it SIMPLE...Juan Macarro did not have ANY children with Isabel from Pechanga. Do your homework before you post. All his children came from a Pauma Indian. Therefore all Macarro decendants are Pauma NOT Pechanga. Mark & John know this too!
ReplyDeleteIf Macarro was from Pechanga their name would be in the Original Base Role of 1979. But it is NOT! Their father Leslie Macarro could not get enrolled so he joined up with Butch & Jenny's Splinter Group in 1980. Macarro is illegally enrolled as is Basquez/Masiel! Why do you think they're going down the list kicking out ligitimate families. It's called Hijacking an Indian Tribe.
ReplyDeleteHaha tapia had no kids with macarro ,,,,haha mark you pussy omg the truth comes out!
ReplyDeleteYour in the same boat as R.basquez the house shooter,,,haha
James Fletcher is the great great grandson of Christina Guavish she married Joaquin Contreras(mexican).Christina was the daughter of Ausgustine Guavish who was the brother of Michella Guavish.The Guavish Line are true Luiseno's and many of them are have been stuck in the ILLEGAL MORITORIUM for many many years and have suffered for far to long their tribe should be helping out their own but instead we have to go and seek help from the Federal Goverment through other programs for Indian People. Do the people from the Pechanga Tribal Council really think that the Federal Goverment does not check out people asking for assistance from them when they know that the Tribe they are from is making millions of dollars every second you jerks are just digging your own graves by being so selfish and uncaring people it will all come tumbling down all evil usually does.......
ReplyDeleteAnonymous August 28, 2010 6:00 AM
ReplyDeletesaid ...
"Yes...keep it SIMPLE...Juan Macarro did not have ANY children with Isabel from Pechanga. Do your homework before you post. All his children came from a Pauma Indian. Therefore all Macarro decendants are Pauma NOT Pechanga. Mark & John know this too!"
It is my understanding that Polinario Macarro, Mark, etc's ancestor, was the son of Juan and Isabel.
If that isn't the case, then that is a smoking gun isn't it!
You mean Mark Corny Macarro isn't one of my long lost cousins?
What a shock!
GOOD JOB BRINGING OUT THE TRUTH ,ONE TWO THREE KEEP GOING WATCH OUT CORRUPT TRIBAL COUNCIL SOMEBODYS LOOKING AT YOU !!!
ReplyDeletePOLYSQWALIS
I do not believe the guavish blood line ,not one of them protested in 14 years they lie....
ReplyDeleteSOUNDS LIKE NAVY BOY IS THE FAKE FAMILY.IF WE HAVE OR HAVE NOT WE DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER TO YOU WHOEVER YOU ARE????????????SHOULD WE GO GET A TIMECARD TO PROVE SOMETHING TO A NOBODY,WE ARE THE GUAVISH CLAN AND YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT;END OF SUBJECT.
ReplyDeleteI still think all of these posts saying Juan Macarro wasn’t Pechanga are BS. What's the basis of saying he from Pauma, because you found one document that said something other than Pechanga? That's the same kind of crap the enrollment committee used to disenroll the Mirandas and Hunters, and now you're making yourselves into hypercritics. Give me ten minutes and I can find at least one document that list Paulina Hunter or one of her descendant as something other than Pechanga. I’ve done a lot of research and I believe that both Paulina Hunter and Juan Macarro were from Pechanga.
ReplyDeleteSaginaw Chippewa court issues ruling in tribal membership case
ReplyDeleteTuesday, August 24, 2010
Filed Under: Law
The appellate court of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan issued a ruling on a membership dispute.
Dennis Tappen, Angela Ayling and Skykur Graveratte applied for membership. They were born to members of the tribe who had at least one-half degree of Indian blood but their applications were rejected, their attorney said.
"The Tribe had previously taken the position it would not honor its own Tribal blood quantum certifications," attorney Paula Fisher told The Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun.
The court ruled that the tribe must consider other types of evidence in order to determine whether someone meets the blood quantum requirements. A spokesperson said the decision will increase administrative burdens on the tribal enrollment office.
Get the Story:
If they get Ruth Masiel as a witness, maybe they can show incompetence.
ReplyDelete"I still think all of these posts saying Juan Macarro wasn’t Pechanga are BS. What's the basis of saying he from Pauma, because you found one document that said something other than Pechanga? That's the same kind of crap the enrollment committee used to disenroll the Mirandas and Hunters, and now you're making yourselves into hypercritics. Give me ten minutes and I can find at least one document that list Paulina Hunter or one of her descendant as something other than Pechanga. I’ve done a lot of research and I believe that both Paulina Hunter and Juan Macarro were from Pechanga."
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that would even remotely suggest that Paulina Hunter was not Pechanga was a 1928 application of one of her grandchildren for enrollment as a California Indian where he put down San Luis Rey tribe, which historically is the same thing as saying Luiseno.
And many other current tribal members also had family members who put the same San Luis Rey referrence on their 1928 applications including people who were cleared from disenrollment.
There are no other documents that say anything other than Paulina was Pechanga Temecula anywhere unless you count the census records from the late 1800's where the whole tribe was called by various names; Temecula, Pechanga, or Temecula-San Luis Rey Tribe
On the other hand the marriage record is clear evidence that Juan Macarro was a Luiseno from another local tribe, Pauma.
But if the Macarros alive today are the descendants of his second wife Isabel(Kengish)Tapia, which from my understanding is the case, then what is the big deal if Juan himself was not Pechanga?
I wouldn't have a problem with Juan M orginally being from another local tribe as I am sure that the people from the 1800's didn't have a problem with it as he was living among the people for many years and he married one of them.
But if they kick us out of the tribe for our ancestor "supposedly" being from another local tribe, then people alive now did make a big deal out of it.
So the Macarros are either from the tribe or they are not as it has to be fair to all concerned.
As I said, my understanding is that they are but not through Juan M.
By the way, I was against disenrolling anyone when the disenrollment nonsense reared its ugly head around the 2001 time period.
ReplyDeleteI supported everyone that was in the tribe staying in the tribe and everyone who was in the moratorium to be let in the tribe.
But if people like Francis Miranda, Ruth Masiel, and Irehne Scearce have family members who put down San Luis Rey on their 1928applications for enrollment as California Indians and then they use that as an excuse to disenroll us because someone from our family did the same, is that fair?
Of course not but they had a slim majority on the enrollment committee and on the tribal council.
I find it interesting that during our disenrollment proceedings, that we were informed that we could not question any of the enrollment committee about there qualifications nor bring in to question any thing about them (I forget the exact wording).
ReplyDeleteIt seems they were already aware about there shaky membership status.
During our appeal hearing, we brought out the fact that the enrollment comittee not only hired an anthropoligist to investigate Paulina Hunter. They also had to get direction from the tribal council to interpret the Petition to end all disenrollments, and the disenrollment procedure. There lack of understanding tribal procedures showed their incompetence in determining tribal membership issues. However, the tribal council assisted them in breaking tribal law, and disenrolled our clan anyways.
ReplyDelete