UPDATE: Malcolm Maclaclan has more to the story at CAPITOL WEEKLY A portion of that:
It appears unlikely that either approach would pass before next year, leaving current urban casino efforts in limbo. In the meantime, anti-casino groups continue to fight the Point Molate project and another proposed casino, this one by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria. That tribe has been fighting heavy opposition to a proposed casino in Rohnert Park, a city of 41,000 located 50 miles north of San Francisco. That land has been taken into trust. On Oct. 1, the National Indian Gaming Commission granted the tribe clearance to build a Class II bingo style casino if they wanted; they need a state compact if they want to build a more lucrative, Class I slot machine-based facility.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has an editorial up in the Contra Costa Times
CALIFORNIA VOTERS settled the question of casino gaming back in 2000 -- or so it seemed. Proposition 1A authorized the governor to negotiate gambling pacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for "federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California."
The words "on Indian lands" are the key to Prop. 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands. Voters endorsed this bargain, approving Prop. 1A with 65 percent of the vote.
But today the spirit of this proposition could be violated by major casinos proposed around the state on lands that are not "Indian lands" -- some of which are more than 100 miles from tribal headquarters.
This is "reservation shopping," in which tribes from rural areas seek federal approval to acquire lands in trust in densely populated urban areas.
The goal: To put casinos where the most potential gamblers are -- even if it disregards the will of California voters
The most recent Propositions on Indian Gaming in California, promised us balanced budgets. That not only didn't happen, we are getting less money than before.
In her editorial Mrs. Feinstein willfully disregards what is happening with California's Indian country. Civil rights and human rights are being violated by tribes such as the Redding Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria (Fresno area) and The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula). What do they have in common? Their lobbyist IETAN. They are working with Sen. Feinstein to stop expansion of gaming by other tribes. Each of the aforementioned tribes have terminated a significant portion of their membership so they can steal those eliminated tribal members per capita checks. Original Pechanga's Blog has details that local news seems not to care about, though more truely, they want to protect their advertising revenue from gaming.
WHY are gaming tribes against smaller tribes gaining a casino? To control market share. Is Indian self reliance only good for those tribes that have gaming NOW? What about the 50 or so other tribes in CA that would benefit? Ask yourselves, WHO benefits more from Sen. Feinstein's legislation? Californians, or gaming tribes?
We will have more on the lobbyist IETAN shortly..
Excelllent post, and well put together spotlight on the corruption that is spilling off the termination reservations.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Jack Abrahamoff do something similar to what IETAN Consulting is doing?
ReplyDeleteHa, ha. The non-members Pechanga removed from its membership roll continue to claim a false status for themselves, as "tribal members." In fact, the disenrollment of the non-members from the membership roll ended the status of these non-members as tribal members. Put another way, the disenrollees have no tribal affiliation with Pechanga; hence, they cannot have the standing that goes with this affiliation: tribal member. By their removal, the non-members have been returned to their former status as non-members, no matter how much they insist otherwise. In addition, the non-members misrepresent their entitlement to a per capita payment. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act specifies that profits from a tribal casino must go to tribal members or to projects and programs benefitting tribal members. Under federal law, these monies cannot go to non-tribal individuals. Thus, a tribe cannot steal something from the non-members which they do not have. The non-members have lost all their rights, benefits, and privileges which they falsely held. The non-members have been exposed and removed. This action has more closely conformed the membership roll to the membership criteria.
ReplyDeletePechanga Custom and Oral tradition
ReplyDeleteMost recently before his death, Antonio Ashman in a sworn affidavit said he knew Paulina as a member of the Band. He also swore that Paulina stayed at the home of Michelle and Salvador Quiliq and heard they were related. He also stated Paulina was called Aunt by Martin Berdugo, another recognized member of Pechanga. This is recorded oral recognition that the CPP faction says Paulina Hunter did not have.
The enrollment committee also finds that Paulina was given a land allotment on the Pechanga reservation as a Temecula Indian. This confirms Paulina’s status as a Temecula Indian.
The record of decision regarding the descendants of Paulina Hunter says that because John Miller under the Act of May 18, 1928 (45 Stat. L 602), a direct descendant of Paulina Hunter states that his Grandmother “was allotted as a Pechanga Mission Indian, but his Grandmother and Great Grandparents were of the San Luis Rey Mission Indians.”
This statement somehow outweighs hundreds of other documents the enrollment committee has possession of detailing the Hunters as recognized members of the Pechanga band by tribal elders who were alive at the time the reservation was established.
If this reasoning stands true, then the following people have the same problems as the Hunters and should be held to the same standards.
1928 Application Blood Pechanga Descendant
Salazar, Petronilla ---San Luiseno Frances Miranda
Leyva, Maximinio ----Mission- San Luis Rey
Ruth Masiel
Irene Scearce
Jennie Miranda
Raymond Basquez
Casas, Louisa Ayal----- Full blood San Luiseno
Bobbie LaMere
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 surviving mission records as being born at Pechanga.
ReplyDeleteIt 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 claiming she was some other kind of Indian? You might ponder "if it is a small group, why hasn't the rest of the Tribe tried to put a stop it?" Well we DID in 2005. As a matter of fact in the largest gathering of our Tribe in recorded history, we voted to STOP "ALL" disenrollment which removed the Disenrollment Procedure from Pechanga Tribal Law. This was the largest voter turnout since the inception of the Reservation. The margin was more than 2:1 in favor of removing the procedure.This so shocked the CPP(Corrupt Pechanga People) that has gained control that they stopped ALL tribal meetings for the next few months, and in secret behind closed doors, guarded by armed guards decided to disregard the vote and the will of the people and disenrolled the Hunters regardless of the law. This act resulted in removing 100+ adults from the upcoming political elections, quarterly bonus, and percapita distributions. Those who are left on the Rez live in fear that if they now speak up the same lawless actions will happen to them.
The case you speak of is four years old?
ReplyDeleteIn court when they dismiss a case it makes no sense to bring up stuff later ?
What are you trying to shove down their throat all these years later ? They don,t want to hear it,and there is no court to listen to it?
although this is interesting,
1928 Application Blood Pechanga Descendant
Salazar, Petronilla ---San Luiseno Frances Miranda
Leyva, Maximinio ----Mission- San Luis Rey
Ruth Masiel
Irene Scearce
Jennie Miranda
Raymond Basquez
Casas, Louisa Ayal----- Full blood San Luiseno
Bobbie LaMere
We bring it up because we didn't get a fair trial and so far, there has been no one to hear our case and there has been no way to make Pechanga even follow their own rules so what else are we supposed to do?
ReplyDeleteAnd giving up is not an option.
In is interesting that if we are San Luis Rey because a member of our extended family referenced San Luis Rey on a 1928 application for enrollment as a California Indian that others, many others according to the Johnson report did so also, then why are we out and they are still in?
the disenrollees have no tribal affiliation with Pechanga "
ReplyDeleteNo affiliation? [FACT] How about living with the tribe from before the reservation was created?
How about the fact that many of the current tribal members are related to the disenrolled members by blood.
[FACT] How about the fact that members of the tribe who were alive and knew our ancestor at the time gave signed witnessed statements that they knew her as a member? [FACT] How about the fact that we have been on the membership rolls since the creation of the reservation?
I do not know how you can have the gall to make a totally inaccurate statement as the disenrollees have no tribal affiliation with Pechanga " !!!
Concerning Anonymous statement on November 30, 2010 11:37 PM
ReplyDeleteTo be more honest why don't you make more accurate statements such as:
The disenrolled members were removed because we did not like the way they were voting.
The disenrolled members were removed because they were bringing to light wrong doings of the enrollment committee.
The disenrolled members were removed because we wanted a higher income.
The disenrolled members were removed because we just plain old did not like them.
Dear gentle readers,
ReplyDeleteThis blog is full of great information. If you follow the trail you will plainly see the facts. Certified, notorized and public information is readly available. The disenrolled or moritorium victims have all the information you need to make an informed decision. They will back up their story with credible documents, as the others will just make statements without any proof.
Why would PECHANGA hire an expert if they didn't want the TRUTH?
ReplyDeleteIt's about power and money
Pechangas Mark Macarro is an exact replica of so many of our Congress and Senate members who ignore the truth, they deny and they lie. We vote new members into Office every few years and hope that they will listen and hear, but as soon as they get into their offices they forget all about us.
ReplyDeleteSenator Feinstein is working with IETAN and the Pechanga Chairman's Wife to stop other tribes from building a Casino and benefitting the riches that they enjoy and have stolen from the Hunters and the Apis who where disenfranchised, whose civil and human rights where denied by a Pechanga Kangaroo Court and many more descendants who are in a moratorium and being denied their inherited rights to join their Tribe.
Mrs.Feinstein seems to be just another Politico bought and paid for by rich greedy Tribes.
The Nov. 30 anonymous poster said that "non-members" were removed from the tribe.
ReplyDeleteHow could that be? Non members by definition would not even BE in the tribe. From my readings, it looks like MEMBERS were removed from the tribe, thereby making them non-members.
So it would seem to be an incorrect assessment from the get-go, or that anonymous poster is lying.
"The Nov. 30 anonymous poster said that "non-members" were removed from the tribe.
ReplyDeleteHow could that be? Non members by definition would not even BE in the tribe. From my readings, it looks like MEMBERS were removed from the tribe, thereby making them non-members.
So it would seem to be an incorrect assessment from the get-go, or that anonymous poster is lying."
Well what do you think when some of the very same people who submitted statements against our tribal membership or who voted against us on while on the enrollment committee during our disenrollment were some of the same people who approved our membership years before?
A Hunter family member who came in during open enrollment between 1979to 1996 still has a date stamped official approval letter when she was first enrolled years ago that included the signatures of the following four individuals; Raymond Basquez Sr, Ruth Masiel, Francis Miranda, and Vincent Ibanez and Ibanez signed her original enrollment card.
So why did they approve her membership in the first place and we never truly belonged?
So our anonymous poster is lying or is grossly uninformed.
Our opponents claim that our disenrollment was just a correction of the enrollment rolls but why approve the membership of a Hunter family member in the first place?
What changed between 1996 and 2006?
Can we say we got the casino?
Hey Bobbie, are you not the same one who enrolled your sister after the Hunters were disenrolled.....Like we say on the Rez....Only white people think and act that way...or is that the new Pechanga way or should i say "Club Pechanga"....Bobbie LaMere you could see the stench seep out you.
ReplyDeleteMark
Both Senators, Senator Feinstein and Barbara Boxer received letters from the Apish and the Hunters detailing what Pechanga has done, we addressed the corruption and violations of human and civil rights at various Tribal Reservations by various Tribal Leaders.
ReplyDeleteOH YES, WE GOT A LETTER FROM BOTH OF THESE POLITICAL H...S, REFERING US TO THE BUREAU of INDIAN AFFAIRS
ANOTHER USELESS AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
No mentioning of " we will look into this or let's discuss, come to our office".
This is what happens when Politicians accept money from Tribes, they do their bidding and they ignore the damage being done to Native Americans who lose their heritage.
Sen.Feinstein is leaving office soon, and Sen.Boxer was just re-elected, we need to send them the same letters again and demand an explanation as to why they WON'T fix the ICRA.
ReplyDelete