Saginaw Chippewa Disenrollment Ruling DELAYED.

Noting the impact of his decision and vowing not to issue a hasty ruling he’d regret, a Saginaw Chippewa Tribal judge on Wednesday asked for time to decide a case that would kick two tribal elders and two deceased members from the Tribal rolls along with 40 living descendants.

“I know this is very personal for all of you,” Judge Patrick Shannon told 28 members in Tribal Court. “I’m going to take some time. I don’t want to do anything from the bench I’m going to regret.”

Four cases under consideration would remove 40 members, and strip them of benefits including monthly payments from casino gaming profits, because their ancestors trace to siblings of members listed on historic base rolls, but not to the members themselves.

Up to 400 members could eventually be removed from Tribal rolls under an appellate court ruling last month that said members must trace directly to those listed on base rolls, and not to siblings or other relatives of the original members.

The four cases considered Wednesday have wound their way through the Tribal administrative and court system for several years, but were put on hold a year ago while the separate appellate case considered so-called collateral-tracing membership.

Attorney Paula Fisher, representing the four facing disenrollment and their descendants, wants further administrative investigations and determinations because all four cases had won initial decisions until Tribal attorneys, under direction of Tribal Council, appealed.

“The only remedy the Tribe had sought before the court was that these cases be remanded for further (administrative) findings,” Fisher argued. “There has been no finding (that they became members because of) gross negligence or wanton and willful disregard.”

But the Tribe’s attorney argued that appeals and arguments are exhausted and all four and their descendants should be removed from membership rolls now.

“It’s extremely frustrating to be here now hearing this argument that should have been made 16 months ago,” said Sarah Van Norman, representing the Tribe. “It appears that this is nothing more than an effort to delay.”

Fisher, though, argued that her request for an administrative investigation and determination could not have been made sooner, nor the appeal filed earlier, because the members in question had won the initial administrative round and agreed to postpone further proceedings while the separate collateral case was pursued.

Judge Shannon said he would rule on the matter by Thursday.

800,000 Signatures Turned in to Place OFF RESERVATIONS Casino Question onto Ballot.

Supporters of a California referendum that would let the voters decide whether the state’s first off-reservation Indian casino can happen in the Central Valley say they have enough signatures to qualify the measure for the 2014 ballot.

About 504,000 signatures are needed to qualify the measure, but proponents had turned in more than 800,000 to the Secretary of State’s office before the September 30 deadline.

Governor Jerry Brown, who signed the compact with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, which would allow them to build the North Fork Rancheria Resort Hotel & Casino in Madera County, criticized the referendum effort. “It’s unfortunate that tens of millions of dollars will now go to fight over this,” said the governor during a speech at the Capitol in Sacramento before tribal leaders. “I think this is a dispute about money, mostly—money and competition.”

Cabazon Tribe LOSES $62 million Damages Suit To Wells Fargo

 -- Wells Fargo Bank NA has prevailed in a dispute over a loan agreement with the Cabazon Mission Band of Indians, as a California judge rejected the tribe's arguments that allowing the bank to collect $62 million in damages on a loan for a casino parking garage would cause it “economic devastation.”

Riverside County Superior Court Judge John G. Evans last week granted Wells Fargo's motion for summary adjudication of its breach-of-contract claim against the Cabazon Band, which took out a $56 million loan in 2006 to...

SUPREME COURT to Hear Argruments Into TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Here is an opportunity for those harmed by their tribes, and tribal councils to ramp up their communication.  Ask the BIA, The JUSTICe DEPARTMENT to stand up for YOUR RIGHTS too.

The United States Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in the case of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community on December 2, 2013.  The parties will address two questions in the case: (1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates IGRA but takes place outside of Indian lands; and (2) Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.

A negative outcome in this case will adversely impact tribal sovereignty.  Sovereign immunity is a critical legal doctrine that protects all governments, including tribal governments, from potentially endless lawsuits that would deplete tribal treasuries and cripple governmental functions.

Proposed Action

Tribes are calling on the United States (the National Indian Gaming Commission, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Justice) to take action under existing federal authority that could moot the case and prevent a negative Supreme Court decision.  In particular, the U.S. Department of the Interior could issue a final agency decision on the land status of the Vanderbilt casino, permitting the status of the land to be determined on its legal merits in Federal Court, thereby removing the issue of tribal sovereign immunity from the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision. To date, the Government has refused to intervene. 

Tribes are also asked to not to file individual briefs in the Bay Mills case but rather to sign on to a single united amicus brief that is being developed by the Tribal Supreme Court Project.  NIGA has joined the Tribal Supreme Court Project brief and is encouraging NIGA member tribes to join as well. 

Case Background

The Bay Mills Indian Community purchased land in Vanderbilt, Michigan in August of 2010 with proceeds from a trust fund established pursuant to the Michigan Indian Land Claims Act of 1997.  The Tribe then opened a gaming facility on the land on November 3, 2010.  Bay Mills takes the legal position that any lands purchased with MILCSA trust funds are lands eligible for tribal gaming under Section 20 of IGRA.

The State of Michigan filed suit in federal court in December of 2010, originally claiming that the Tribe violated the terms of the gaming compact and IGRA.  The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians joined the lawsuit.  While not directly settling the Indian lands question, the district court issued an opinion that the Vanderbilt land would "likely" not qualify as Indian lands under IGRA, and it issued an injunction enjoining Bay Mills from operating its casino on the Vanderbilt property.  The facility has remained closed since March 2011.

Bay Mills, asserting sovereign immunity, filed an appeal.  The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed - again without addressing the Indian lands question. The Sixth Circuit held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction under IGRA over an allegation that the Tribe's casino is not on Indian lands, and that the other claims brought by the State are barred by the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.

With regard to the Indian lands question, both the Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Indian Gaming Commission have issued legal opinions that the Vanderbilt site does not qualify as "Indian lands" under the IGRA.  However, neither agency has formalized the Indian lands decision, which would constitute final agency action. 

As a result, the status of the Bay Mills' Vanderbilt land is in legal limbo, BUT the appeals in the underlying case move forward to the dangerous territory of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 2005, with John Roberts as Chief Justice, tribal governments have a record of 1 win and 9 losses in the 10 Indian law cases heard by the Roberts Court. 

As noted above, the case is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on December 2, 2013 and attorneys general from seventeen different states have joined the State of Michigan.

The State of Michigan and the various state attorneys general are using this case to directly attack tribal sovereign immunity and insert the authority of states to regulate Indian gaming under IGRA. Michigan has asked the Court to examine "IGRA as a whole" to find Congressional intent to waive tribal sovereign immunity.  In the alternative, Michigan asks the Court to overrule Santa Clara Pueblo and apply a lesser standard when considering whether federal laws (such as IGRA) abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.  Finally, Michigan is asking the Court to recognize that tribal sovereign immunity is a "common law doctrine" created by the Supreme Court and subject to adjustment by the Court.

If you have any questions regarding this alert please contact Danielle Her Many Horses, Deputy Director with any questions you have regarding this alert. 

How Mark Macarro's Council Subverted The Pechanga Tribal Constitution. And WHY Congress Should Not TRUST Pechanga

Cousin A'amokat fills in the details on how Pechanga's Chairman Mark Macarro did not follow tribal law, custom and tradition nor the will of the people.  Congress cannot trust that the tribe will be fair on the water rights of allottees, when the council doesn't even follow their own constitution



Here are some statements, in bullets that Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro has issued.

• “The right to determine our citizenship is central to Pechanga's identity as a distinct sovereign government. Tribal nations have sole jurisdiction and authority to establish and enforce procedures to determine their own tribal citizenship. The courts have consistently upheld this tribal right because of more than 200 years of legal precedent."

The Pechanga General Membership, the final authority, under Article VIII of the Band’s constitution and bylaws in all matters of tribal government, unless specified in this constitution and bylaws, voted in July 2005 to outlaw disenrollment and thus the procedures to move against our family, the lineal descendants of Paulina Hunter, did not exist after this law was passed so the decision to disenroll us in March 2006 is null and void!

Fine Pechanga, you have jurisdiction in matters of tribal membership, then be fair and follow your own rules.  When the tribe was debating the petition to outlaw disenrollment in 2005 Chairman Mark Macarro was asked if the Hunter family would be included in the new law if it was passed and he responded, “all means all.”  Mr. Chairman, abide by your own statement!  The people knew what they were voting on and the people spoke!

• "The Pechanga Enrollment Committee is the Pechanga entity responsible for determining issues of enrollment and citizenship as established in our Tribal laws. This is accomplished through codified tribal processes with findings and due process requirements."

Again, the General Membership, under Article VIII of the Band’s constitution and bylaws are the final authority in all matters of tribal government, including enrollment, because the Band’s constitution and bylaws does not specify that the enrollment committee is the final authority.

There is tribal legal precedent that proves that the people are the final authority regarding enrollment matters, namely, that in April 1986, after the lineal descendants of Rose Murphy, including current sitting Pechanga tribal councilman Russell Butch Murphy, had been turned down for tribal membership by the enrollment committee, the General Membership of the tribe voted to take in the lineal descendants of Rose Murphy thereby overruling the enrollment committee’s decision to not enroll them.
So since the people voted to overrule the committee to take in the Rose Murphy descendants in 1986, then the people could and did vote to overrule any decisions that were pending in 2005 to disenroll the Hunters.  Again, the decision to disenroll the Hunters in 2006 is null and void!

In addition, How did we, the Hunters, get fairness and due process when biased people against our family, Irehne Scearce and Ruth Masiel, were allowed to rule on our disenrollment case while sitting on the enrollment committee?   They were the sisters of  Raymond Basquez Sr, who as a witness, submitted a statement against our tribal membership.  OP:  They should have been recused

In addition, how did we also get fairness and due process  when Andy Masiel Sr, the nephew of a witness, Mr. Basquez, the son of Mrs. Masiel, and the nephew of Mrs. Scearce was allowed to rule on our appeal of our disenrollment to the tribal council?
We asked that these people, in the interest of fairness, be made to step aside from ruling on our disenrollment case because of conflict of interest as the Band’s constitution and bylaws that prohibits malice or prejudice against tribal members under Article V which states the following:

•  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE BAND TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, AND ORDINANCES OF THE TEMECULA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS; AND ALSO, TO UPHOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF EACH MEMBER WITHOUT MALICE OR PREJUDICE."

In addition, it is the duty of the tribal council, also under Article V of the Band’s constitution and bylaws, to enforce duly passed ordinances of the Band which include the law to outlaw disenollment that was passed in July 2005.  Once again, the decision to disenroll the Hunters in March 2006 is null and void!  Again, Pechanga, please be fair and follow your own rules!

• "Disenrollment actions occurred at Pechanga before we ever had a casino as well as after, quite independent of our gaming activities. Contrary to the allegations of a few, this matter has nothing to do with politics or profits."

Yes, there were some isolated incidents of disenrollments  prior to the casino opening but there was never any whole scale decimating of entire family lines prior to the casino.  Ironically, in 1989, some individuals were disenrolled after they were found to not be lineal descendants of Manuela Miranda.  So it is also ironic that in 2004 all of the lineal descendants of Manuela Miranda were themselves disenrolled which, of course, was after the casino was opened.

The decision to disenroll the Manuela Mirandas in 2004 and the Hunters in 2006 had nothing to do with politics or profits?  Well, together they were a large voting bloc who were influencing the outcome of elections but after they were eliminated from the tribal rolls, a large opposition to the current regime’s politics was eliminated as well.  In addition, all of the remaining members of the tribe got a raise in their per capita profit share that was proportional to the numbers of people no longer on the tribal rolls.

Letter to Congressman Ken Calvert, on The Theft of Water Rights Pursued By Mark Macarro and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians

Please help us address the theft of our water rights by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians by signing and sending this letter.

Congressman Ken Calvert
2269 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1986
Fax: (202) 225-2004


Dear Congressman Calvert,

I am writing you in regards to the recent Pechanga Water Rights Bill that was introduced in the House (HR 2508) with your sponsorship. We have concerns, having had our tribal citizenship terminated by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.  Many of our family reside on an original Pechanga allotment of land granted to us by President McKinley.

We believe that no entity that participates in, supports, or otherwise partakes in human and/or civil rights violations should benefit from the public trust.  And this bill, as written certainly gives Pechanga benefits that we seem to be excluded from.

Please help us clarify WHY the tribe wants definitions of allottees changed?  Here is the draft of the first water rights bill of 2010 (which could be taken to mean purchaser of reservation land, whether Indian or not:


(4) ALLOTTEE- The term ‘allottee’ means a person who holds a beneficial real property interest in an Indian allotment that is--
(A) located within the Reservation; and
(B) held in trust by the United States.

In the NEW definitions section allottee are defined at a member of an Indian tribe, notwithstanding the fact that allottee could be Indian without tribal membership.  As you know, Pechanga terminated the membership of 25% of their tribe, in an act outside the tribal constitution which has NO BEARING on our allotment; we are STILL allottees of reservation land and should have all rights.

(4) Allottee.--The term ``allottee'' means a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe who holds a beneficial real property interest in an Indian allotment that is--
(A) Located within the Reservation; and
(B) Held in trust by the United States

By using the terms above, they are trying to rewrite history and redefine what an allottee of the Temecula Indian Reservation really is.  An allottee is one who received a reservation allotment from President McKinley and whose land has been held in trust by the United States for the allottee and their lineal descendents.

Please view Original Pechanga’s Blog at http://originalpechanga.com for information on what Pechanga has done.

QUESTIONS:

1. Are you intending to exclude our family, as disenrolled Pechanga allottees, from any say in our water rights?  Or are you accepting the bill, written by Pechanga lobbyists at face value?
2. Is it your intent in this bill to abrogate the Federal government’s trust responsibility to disenrolled Pechanga allottees?
3. Why are allottees not required to be INDIAN for purposes of this law.
4. Is it your intent to rectify the injustice of our disenrollment from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians which was unconstitutional, according to Pechanga’s own tribal constitution, and return our tribal membership using Congress’ plenary power?

Under Section 5, TRIBAL WATER RIGHTS it states:

(3) Allocations.--Allotted land of an allottee that is located within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation shall be entitled to a just and equitable allocation of water for irrigation purposes from the water resources described in the Pechanga Settlement Agreement.

QUESTION:  
1,  Although we have had grape vineyards on our allotted land for over a century, does “irrigation purposes” include maintaining the water we have going into our homes for drinking and personal use?

2. Would the Pechanga Tribal Council be able to cut water off from members of our family living on our allotted land on the reservation, even though we have been on our allotted property for over a century?

Regional Director of the BIA Amy Dutschke said in a letter to us that:  

The Department of the Interior recognizes that allottees have water rights on allotted lands and that the United States has a trust responsibility, independent of any responsibility to the Pechanga Band, to protect those interests.
The Department is currently reviewing the proposed settlement legislation and its effect on allottees within the Reservation.

Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro and the tribal council have made NO ATTEMPT to discuss OUR WATER RIGHTS and how they will protect us.  We have over 175 family members with rights on our allotment #62, which has been in our family since 1895.

Please rescind your support of HR 2508 until the Pechanga Water Rights Bill includes disenrolled original tribal allottees, and other allottees that have been denied membership, which number in the HUNDREDS.   Please request that the BIA meet with allottees to determine their rights to the water, which have been ours for centuries.

Department of Interior Approves NORTH FORK RANCHERIA Off Reservation Casino. AGAINST THE WILL OF CA VOTERS

Contrary to what California voters wanted, OFF RESERVATION CASINO's are now OKAY.   SO WHY, then should tribes get that reward? Shouldn't the STATE now expand into gaming?

The federal Department of the Interior has signed off on the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians' gaming compact allowing a resort and casino north of Madera on Highway 99.

In the Federal Register, the 20-year compact became effective Tuesday and expires on Dec. 31, 2033. The compact allows the North Fork casino to have 2,000 gaming devices. The casino also will have 50 gaming tables. The tribe plans a $250 million project on 305 acres.

Supporters of the compact say the federal announcement means that the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians can begin building. But opponents say the casino may be put on hold pending a state referendum next year. If enough signatures have been gathered to force a referendum, voters will get a chance to accept or reject the compact.

The casino compact went through a process that twice required the federal government and Gov. Jerry Brown's approval. It also was approved by the state Legislature.

Publication in the Federal Register marks the end of a nine-year process, said Elaine Bethel-Fink, tribal chair for the North Fork Mono Rancheria Indians.

Read the rest of Marc Benjamin’s story in the FRESNO BEE
How’s Expanded gaming worked out for CA?

Chukchansi Dispute Boiling Over, Taking Action Against Madera County Sheriff John Anderson

William Dotinga of Courthouse News Service  has the story of the Picayune Rancheria Dispute now going after the Sheriff.

A rural Central California county with a lucrative Indian casino is beset by a skirmish between three tribal factions, one of which set up a "purported" court which took action against the sheriff, the sheriff claims in court.

     Madera County Sheriff John Anderson sued the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, Chukchansi Economic Development Authority and Chukchansi Indian Housing Authority in Federal Court.

     Also sued are "Lewis faction" leaders Jack Duran Jr., Donna Howard, Reggie Lewis, Chance Alberta, Carl Bushman, Irene Waltz, Lynn Chenot, David Castillo and Melvin Espe, all sued "in (their) purported official capacities."

     Lead defendant Duran, for example, is sued "in his purported official capacity as judge of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians Tribal Court."

     According to the sheriff's lawsuit, the history of bad blood in the Picayune Rancheria goes back to 1983 and the resolution of a class action challenge to the California Rancheria Act of 1958.
     That act terminated dozens of Indian tribes and stripped members of their Native American status - including the Picayune Rancheria.

     After a federal judge restored the rancheria's status, the Bureau of Indian Affairs worked with two families - the Ramirezes and the Wyatts - to create a tribal government. Ultimately, the Wyatt descendants gained control of tribal leadership and adopted a constitution in 1988.
     But the power struggle continues.

     Madera County and the Picayune Rancheria clashed in 2003, after the tribe finished building the Chukchansi casino and the county reassessed the land for property taxes. In 2007, a federal judge declared the rancheria sovereign Native American land, but gave the Madera County Sheriff's Department limited access to it for law enforcement purposes.

Mark Macarro: LIAR! Pechanga's Golf Course on Land Macarro Told Congress Was Culturally Significant.

One of the meeting we had in Washington DC led to a discussion of the fact that land that Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro told Congress was culturally significant and need to be protected was now...A GOLF COURSE.   We've written about it before, but wanted to get it out front again, since Interior and The Department of Justice has been checking the site so frequently.

It's important because Pechanga is currently trying to steal water rights from allottees of the reservation and are lying ...again... to Congress.  We'd like to get a previous lie out front.

Below is a story about the Journey, a golf course built by the Pechanga Band on lands previously determined to be culturally significant. The golf course was cut through the Great Oak Ranch and adjacent property referenced in Chairman Macarro’s testimony to the House Resources Committee from April 17, 2002 regarding the Great Oak Ranch and the need to protect the resources they are on: 

Click here for TESTIMONY

Here is a preview of some of the most relevant testimony regarding the Great Oak Ranch and the invaluable resources that Tribe said it needed assistance in protecting from development.

“We believe the resources found on the Great Oak Ranch should be 

preserved and remain within the Ranch. The sole purpose of the 

acquisition is the preservation and the protection of Luiseno people’s 

natural and cultural resources. The Pechanga Band is committed to 

protecting and preserving the invaluable and irreplaceable cultural 

resources of the Pechanga and Luiseno people. The cultural resources 

located within the Great Oak Ranch provide the Pechanga Band with the 

unique opportunity to protect and preserve such resources on property 

owned by the Tribe itself.

Once the Great Oak Ranch property is accepted into trust by the United States, it will become part of the Pechanga Reservation. TheTribe will exercise powers of self-government, including civil regulatory jurisdiction, to protect the unique archaeological,biological and cultural resources, as well as the historic and sacred  sites on the Great Oak Ranch.

Mr. Hayworth: “Chairman Macarro, does the Pechanga Tribe have any plans for development of any kind on the Great Oak Ranch property?”

Mr. Macarro: “No, we don’t. As stated in our application to Interior/BIA, we stated or have designated there is no change of use in the property, and the intended use and purpose is to preserve and protect the resources that are there. The cultural resources in particular are also very significant. Along the base of all the foothills there are
significant old village sites, dark midden soil area, cremation areas and associated sacred sites.”

Mr. Hayworth: “… Just one follow-up, and for purposes of the record, Mr.Chairman, does the tribe plan to use the Great Oak Ranch for gaming purposes or any purposes other than what you have just outlined?”

Mr. Macarro. “No, the tribe does not.”

Needless to say, the development of the golf course and other projects on land that was supposed to be free from impacts in no way reflects the “no change in use” testified to by Mr. Macarro. While the transfer of the Ranch property protected it from the proposed power line project, the transfer did not protect the Ranch or its resources from tribal development projects, including the golf course. 

“The transfer of the Great Oak Ranch and eventual development of the property is tragic,” stated John Gomez, Jr.* “If the golf course project, or any other development, had been proposed on private property as culturally rich and significant as this, you better believe that tribal officials would have taken every action, whether it be lawsuits or acts of Congress, to stop it. Unfortunately, the duty to protect and preserve does not apply to tribal projects that may add to the bottom line.” 

In addition to the impacts development has had on the cultural and archaeological resources on the Great Oak Ranch and the surrounding area, it appears that the tribal officials’ double-talk was reason enough for the City of Temecula and others to raise serious concerns regarding a recent bill sponsored by Congressman Issa to transfer additional lands to the United States government for the Pechanga Band.

The bill, HR 2963, which was passed in September, transferred land in Riverside and San Diego Counties for “the protection, preservation, and maintenance of the archaeological, cultural, and wildlife resources thereon”. Based on their experience with the Great Oak Ranch transfer, the City of Temecula and local residents sought and received language in HR 2963 that would restrict development. However, only time will tell if the bill language is enough to protect the invaluable cultural and archaeological resources from the development plans of tribal officials. 

In response, Pechanga's General Counsel John Macarro, wrote, "Once the land is placed in trust, a tribe has complete zoning and planning authority over it and can change land uses just as a county or city can change or update its general plan or zoning designations." Meaning: Just because we said we wanted to maintain cultural sites and don't propose development if you just give us the land free, doesn't mean we can't put a golf course there.

Pechanga Tribes HIRED Renown Archaeologist Who PROVES PAULINA HUNTER IS Pechanga

House Committee staffers asked for copy of Dr. Johnson's report in our meeting last week.  We told them we had VIDEO of him explaining Paulina Hunter was Pechanga.  Obviously, there was a bit of disgust over what they did.

Pechanga hired Dr. Johnson, but didn't use his report.  WHY?  Because the TRUTH didn't fit into their plan.

As always, if you can tweet this to:  @USIndianAffairs @IndianCommittee  and to ALL your friends and ask them to do the same.

NOOKSACK 306 Win Small Victory Against Abuse by BOB KELLY, Chairman.

Nooksack Tribal Court Chief Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis has ruled that 306 people facing expulsion from tribal membership rolls are entitled to legal representation when they go before the tribal council, but she has rejected other legal efforts to block the expulsion process.

OP: PECHANGA did not allow attorney's to represent disenrolled in their hearings.  Pechanga ALSO did not hear each case on it's merits, but herded groups like cattle into a hearing with at least ONE incompetent EC member, Ruth Masiel.

Seattle attorney Gabriel Galanda, representing the embattled faction of the 2,000-member Nooksack Indian Tribe, has raised a variety of arguments challenging the legality of the expulsion drive spearheaded by Tribal Chairman Bob Kelly and his supporters on the tribal council. But the tribe's attorneys have argued that the tribe, as a sovereign government, is legally immune from lawsuits in the case, and Montoya-Lewis has mostly agreed.

In her Oct. 17, 2013, ruling dismissing nearly all of Galanda's arguments, Montoya-Lewis cited a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling: Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez. In that case, a majority of justices agreed that tribal councils have broad powers to make and enforce rules governing tribal membership.

"Tribal membership rules vary widely from tribe to tribe, but it's undisputed that the authority to make those rules lies at the heart of tribal governance and sovereignty," Montoya-Lewis wrote.

Galanda had argued that his clients were not getting their constitutional right to due process before they face loss of tribal membership that includes valuable fishing rights and tribal services, as well as emotional significance.

While Montoya-Lewis noted the lack of clear legal precedent determining how much "due process" tribal members must get before losing their membership, she ruled that the tribal council's proposal to give each challenged member a 10-minute telephone hearing was sufficient - as long as the members are allowed to have someone to represent them in that hearing. The tribal council had earlier told the 306 they would not be allowed to have an attorney assist them.

Otherwise, Montoya-Lewis wrote, a 10-minute telephone conference should be sufficient to determine the issue at hand. Tribal officials have presented evidence that the 306 do not descend from anyone listed on a 1942 tribal census that is the key factor for valid tribal ancestry under Nooksack membership rules.

All 306 trace their ancestry to the late Annie George. They argue that she was a Nooksack left off the census by mistake, and they have presented other legal documents and anthropologists' opinions attempting to prove that.

In perhaps the most alarming development for the 306, Montoya-Lewis wrote that the accuracy of the census doesn't matter: The tribal council has the legal right to use that census, however flawed, as the condition for membership today.

"Some tribes no longer rely on census data for enrollment and rely instead on DNA evidence," the judge wrote. "Some tribes rely entirely on census data and family trees, even when that census data was never intended for such purposes. Any way a tribe determines membership will result in what some will determine to be unfair and what others will determine to be protective of a tribe's interests."

In a final blow to the Nooksacks fighting to stay in the tribe, Montoya-Lewis rejected a legal challenge to a tribal council decision denying payment of annual back-to-school stipends of $275 to children who face eventual expulsion from the tribe.

Montoya called that decision "distasteful," but she said the tribal council had the legal authority to make it.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/10/18/3266417/embattled-members-of-nooksack.html#storylink=cpy

Casino Crimewatch: Barona Casino CHEATER (accused) Extradited From Nevada

A well-known professional gambler accused of cheating at cards at a San Diego-area casino has been extradited from Nevada to California.

The San Diego County district attorney’s office says 62-year-old Archie Karas won more than $8,000 in July by marking blackjack cards at the Barona Casino. He was arrested at his Las Vegas home in September.

Karas is a high-stakes gambler known for a winning streak from 1992 to 1995 that earned him $40 million at Las Vegas tables before he gambled it away.

Prosecutors said Friday that he faces nearly four years in prison if convicted.

BRADFORD: Pechanga Band Launches Lucrative Water Rights Grab. Sen. Boxer and Feinstein Approve of Theft VIA Sponsorship

Investigative reporter Susan Bradford discovers the Pechanga Tribe and Mark Macarro and Holly Macarro's attempt to steal water rights from allottees including Tosobol and Hunter Clans. Here is her take

Pechanga Band Launches Lucrative Water Rights Grab

by susanbradfordpress

Under the pretext of compensating the allottees of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno for past historical injustices, the industrialists are attempting to corner the lucrative water market in the Santa Margarita River watershed with the assistance of two lobbying firms at the center of the Abramoff investigation.

In June, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which seeks a “fair, equitable, and final settlement of certain claims by the band and allottees against the United States” and “water rights and claims for injuries to water rights in the Santa Margarita Watershed for the band and the U.S. in its capacity as trustee for the band.” was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee (H.R. 2508) and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee (S. 1219).

The language of the bill was written by Holly Maccaro, a Principal of Ietan Consulting, which, along with Akin Gump, represents the tribe as the lobbying firms on record. Akin Gump, which enjoys strong ties to Sen. John McCain, assigned former counsel to Secretary of Interior, Michael Rossetti, to represent the tribe.

Rossetti testified against Deputy Secretary Stephen Griles, Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff’s chief contact within the Department of Interior, in the McCain’s duplicitous Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings .

Maccaro was careful to define an “allottee” as a “member of a federally recognized Indian tribe who holds a beneficial real property interest in an Indian allotment that is … located within the reservation and held in trust by the United States.”

Presumably, then, the numerous Pechanga Indians who have been disenrolled would not receive any benefits from this legislation.

The Santa Margarita Watershed covers 750 square miles in northern San Diego and southwestern Riverside countries and contains a variety of “nearly intact habitats, including chaparral-covered hillsides, riparian woodlands, and coastal marshes,” according to Project Clean Water. Of the total watershed area, approximately 27 lies within San Diego County with the river forming near the City of Temecula in Riverside County at the confluence of the Temecula and Murrieta Creek systems.

Most of the water provided by the river flows within San Diego County through unincorporated areas, the community of Fallbrook, and the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. “The lower river and estuary have largely escaped the development typical of other regions of coastal Southern California and are therefore able to support a relative abundance of functional habitats and wildlife,”the PCW maintains.

Read the REST OF THE STORY AT Susan Bradford’s BLOG

Chukchansi Indian UNABLE to make FULL PAYMENT TO BANK. AYALA FACTION. CAN they PAY Winners, Or TIGHTEN THE SLOTS?

REMEMBER:  IF the Chukchansi Tribe will cheat, pepper spray, and smoke out their own people, are their customers protected?

Marc Benjamin has the story at the FRESNO BEE:

The Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians was unable to make a full payment last month to the bank that restructured financing for the tribe's Madera County casino, according to court documents released Friday.

The tribe's financial predicament surfaced in a ruling by a New York judge who is requiring the two opposing factions, led by Nancy Ayala and Reggie Lewis, to give all their financial information to the trustee, Wells Fargo. Judge Melvin Schweitzer also wants a professional audit completed.

The Ayala group took control of the Coarsegold tribal business center and Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino after a February referendum that the Lewis faction -- which split from the Ayala group -- contends was unconstitutional.

In a hearing Wednesday, the judge said casino operators were obligated to make an interest payment of $12.49 million to the bondholders on Sept. 30, but paid only $6.25 million.

"We asked why they did not have sufficient money to make the interest payment," said Richard Verri, lawyer for the Lewis group. "The Ayala group has been in control of the till; we want to know why the casino doesn't have a plan for operating the business so it can pay its debts."

The casino and Chukchansi Economic Development Authority, the agency in charge of the casino, "state that they have no existing plan for payment of the remaining interest," court documents said.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/10/18/3560447/chukchansi-miss-half-of-payment.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/10/18/3560447/chukchansi-miss-half-of-payment.html#storylink=cpy

Western Sky FInancial Closes Operations; Accused of Violating USURY laws. VIG up to 199%

It seems like the VIG from the MAFIA is a better deal, Webb, charges 39 to 199%!!

On Sept. 3, Western Sky Financial/Lakota Cash an online payday loan company located on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation was forced to close its operations in Eagle Butte and Timber Lake after cash flow used to process loans was cut off.

In August, New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky filed suit against the company, owned by CRST tribal member Martin “Butch” Webb, accusing him of violating the state’s usury laws that cap interest rates at 25 percent.
The lawsuit also names CashCall Inc. and its affiliate, WS Funding LLC the companies which provide the loans. The lawsuit, seeks to stop the company from offering loans to New York residents and asks that they cancel any currently outstanding loans and repay borrowers any interest and fees charged above the legal limits.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and several other states including Maryland, Colorado and Nevada have filed similar lawsuits against the company. “I’m deeply saddened that so many members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe have had their lives turned upside down because of regulators and bureaucrats thousands of miles away,” Webb said. “Creating jobs here on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation has been my proudest accomplishment, and it’s painful to know that my former employees face the prospect of long-term unemployment given the few job opportunities available to them.”

On Wednesday Oct. 9 more than 30 of the 118 former employees of Western Sky along with attorneys Sheryl Bouge and Steve Emery and spokesperson Frank King appeared before the CRST Tribal Council soliciting support to help fight what they believe is encroachment on tribal sovereignty.

NCAI Elects New President Brian Cladoosby, from Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

After defeating Joe Garcia in a runoff, NCAI has a NEW President; Brian Cladoosby, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Congratulations on the new position. Hopefully, he can work for those THOUSANDS of Indians that have been harmed by their own communities.

Riverside County Democratic Central Committee ACCEPTS MONEY From Civil Rights Violators, THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

In a shameful act, the Democrats from Riverside County gladly accept money from a tribe that practices APARTHEID on their reservation, is looking to steal water rights from reservation allottees and a tribe that has lied to Congress.

Howard Katz accepted $10,000 to turn a blind eye to Pechanga's atrocities.



Read the story at the TEMECULA PATCH

Is The Celebration of Columbus Day a Bigger Issue Than The Washington Redskins? Is ONEIDA Nation Bullying?

We have had a poll up on the Washington Redskins nickname controversy on our sidebar, but would a more proper target be what our children are learning about Columbus?   What do you Think??



Susan Bradford has her own view of the ONEIDA nation’s bullying of the Redskins Organization

More stuff on Christopher Columbus your teachers never told you:


1. On a 1493 voyage, Columbus' ship Santa Maria was shipwrecked in the area now called The Bahamas. He found the native people the 'Lucayans' friendly, healthy, helpful and generous. They freed his ship. In return, he kidnapped 25 of them. Only 7 survived the journey back to Spain. 

2. Columbus told the queen the Lucayans wore gold and had many riches, but were so passive it would take only 50 men to overtake the entire island, rule them and steal their riches. The queen complied giving Columbus 17 ships, 1500 men and an arsenal of weapons. 

3. When Columbus returned he demanded food, gold and women to be used as sex slaves for all his men. When anyone refused him, Columbus had their ears and nose chopped off. He sent these disfigured offenders back to their villagers to tell the people what had happened and to fear Columbus. 

4. Sooner or later, the Lucayans revolted. They had no weapons other than rocks and primitive spears and Columbus' troops were well armed. The war ended quickly. Eye witnesses report fallen Lucayans were fed alive to hungry dogs as they screamed. 

5. Columbus still did not have the gold he promised the queen, but he returned to Spain with a gift of 500 Lucayan slaves. Of those, 300 survived the journey. 

6. Another 500 slaves were captured and forced to carry Columbus' men around on their backs, feed them, and care for them. Escaped slaves were hunted down and fed to the dogs. 

7. Any villager who was stopped and asked for gold had to produce some immediately. If a villager surrendered gold, they were given a token, sort of a 'free pass' to not have to produce gold to the next one of Columbus' men that asked. However, if a native did not have a token and could not produce gold to hand over, Columbus had the man's hand chopped off and forced him to wear it around his neck. 

8. Columbus finally got all the gold he wanted. His lieutenants were rewarded with sex slaves and girls of nine and ten years old were most prized. Why is it important to know this? Because it is the truth. 

Tribal Recognition a TWO FRONT BATTLE:

Greg Guedel has a great article on tribal recognition and federal recognition

Despite the fact that the first several thousand years of American history and culture were the creation of Native Americans, it remains intensely difficult for many Native Americans to obtain basic recognition from their government of their heritage. In the current context, “their government” is actually plural – recognition must be granted by both the United States government and the Tribal government in order for individual Native Americans to fully enjoy their rights and historical legacy as members of their nation. For more than a century the primary battle has been for Tribes to obtain federal recognition and a treaty relationship with the United States, and the onerous process for achieving this recognition is well documented. However, at a time when the federal government is now working constructively to improve the recognition process for Tribes, a different battle is repeatedly making unfortunate headlines – Native Americans being rejected or banished from membership by their own Tribes.

To obtain full recognition from the United States government – which is the only means through which Tribes can participate in federal programs designed to benefit them – Native American Tribes have long had to endure one of the most arduous administrative processes in the bureaucratic universe. Numerous Tribes have applied for federal recognition, completed every task asked of them to demonstrate their unity and history as a nation, and then waited 30 years or more just to be told “No”. Given that federal recognition is required in order for a Tribe to participate in most federal programs, the consequences for members of non-recognized Tribes have been dire, including a denial of assistance for health care, law enforcement, and community development.

Improving this system has long been a priority for Native advocates, and the federal government is finally taking tangible action. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has circulated for comment draft revisions to the policies and procedures for federal recognition of Native American Tribes. Key provisions of the proposed new policies include:

• Eliminating duplicative application documents;
• Fewer subjective criteria regarding cohesiveness of Tribal community and identity;
• Expediting the decision process following applications – from years to months;
• Greater weight given to current Tribal recognition by state government;
• Automatic recognition if criteria are met and no in-state government objections are filed.

BANISHED UNITED AUBURN Members FILE CLAIM AGAINST TRIBE: HOWARD DICKSTEIN ALERT

A challenge based on the ICRA (Indian Civil Rights ACT) which has negligible enforcement action in it.  It needs to be amended.


A former tribal chairwoman and three other members filed legal challenges Thursday charging that they were illegally banished from United Auburn Indian Community and denied a share of millions of dollars from the lucrative Thunder Valley tribal casino in Lincoln.

In an unusual legal action unearthing bitter divisions in one of California’s wealthiest casino tribes, plantiffs headed by former chairwoman Jessica Tavares charged that the United Auburn tribe imposed “unlawful restraints on their liberty” by cutting off their income and banning them from tribal property.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, attorneys for Tavares claimed she was personally denied up to $2 million of her share of casino revenues as political retaliation for criticizing the tribal council over some $25 million in legal fees paid to the firm of tribal attorney Howard Dickstein.

Tavares’ legal action, filed as a writ of habeas corpus, said the tribal council imposed a four-year ban on payments to Tavares, beginning in November 2011, a denial of $40,000 a month in benefits, plus bonuses based on casino profits. It claimed the tribal action dealt a “severe and devastating penalty” that resulted in Tavares losing her house through foreclosure.

Tavares and the other plaintiffs – Dolly Suehead, Barbara Suehead and Donna Caesar – were part of an unsuccessful recall effort against five tribal council members in 2011 that focused on a contract, later revised, that had paid a percentage of casino revenues to Dickstein. The tribal attorney, who couldn’t be reached Thursday, said in an inteview with The Bee in early 2012 that the financial arrangement was proper and that his relationship with United Auburn resulted in “a phenomenal net benefit to the tribe.”

Bob Costas: REDSKINS NAME IS A SLUR. What do you think? Take our Poll

We have a poll up on our left side bar.   Add your voice to the question of offensiveness.

Here's Costas' take:

“Think for a moment about the term ‘Redskins’ and how it truly differs from all the others,” Costas said regarding the Washington name and other team names referring generally to Native Americans or specifically to tribes.  “Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed African-Americans.  Hispanics.  Asians.  Or members of any other ethnic group.  When considered that way, ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly honor a heritage, or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.

“It is an insult, a slur, no matter now benign the present-day intent,” Costas added.  “It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended, but if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?”

How Much $$ is Mark Macarro of Pechanga Paying Wife HOLLY MACARRO's Firm IETAN CONSULTING To STEAL ALLOTTEE'S WATER?

During our recent trip to Capitol Hill, meeting with staff members to expose what Pechanga's Mark Macarro is trying to do to reservation allottees with their recent water bill, we got confirmation that Holly Macarro, lobbyist and principal at IETAN CONSULTING put together the bill.

In that bill, both Macarro's are trying to change the defintion of an allottee:

Here is the draft of the water rights bill from three years ago, which included purchaser of reservation land, whether Indian or not:


(4) ALLOTTEE- The term ‘allottee’ means a person who holds a beneficial real property interest in an Indian allotment that is--
(A) located within the Reservation; and
(B) held in trust by the United States .

As you know, Pechanga terminated the membership of 25% of their tribe, which has NO BEARING on our allotment, we are STILL allottees of reservation land and should have all rights.

In the NEW definitions section allottee are defined at a member of an Indian tribe, notwithstanding the fact that allottee could be Indian without tribal membership.

(4) Allottee.--The term ``allottee'' means a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe who holds a beneficial real property interest in an Indian allotment that is--
(A) located within the Reservation; and
(B) held in trust by the United State

Is this because so FEW tribal members have an allotment?  Is it a direct challenge to the original Temecula Indian Allotments from 1895?

Interesting to note that the past FIVE full year, Pechanga has paid Chairman Mark Macarro's WIFE's firm over $1.2 MILLION.   And what has the tribe gotten?  TWO WATER BILLS going NOWHERE!.

In 2008, IETAN had 7 lobbyists on the hill, NOW, only THREE.  Is this a double dip on the chairman's part?

CROSS POSTED AT:
TEMECULA PATCH

Pico Family Elder, Germaine Arenas Walks ON.

I apologize for not getting this up earlier this week.   A Pechanga elder, Germaine Arenas, has passed. I was in Washington DC last week for meetings with Congressional staffers and couldn't get this posted. May she rest in peace.

GERMAINE BEATRICE (Pico) ARENAS 

December 11, 1931 - September 29, 2013 

Pechanga tribal elder, Germaine Pico Arenas passed away quietly Sunday, September 29, 2013. Born to the Pico family in their home on 7th Street in Perris, CA on December 11, 1931. Germaine grew up and attended school in Perris in the 1930's and 1940's throughout the peak of the Depression. The Pico family home was known for having a great garden. Germaine once said, "Gardening during the Depression and WWII was serious business; what you grew is what you ate or you didn't eat." 

As the eldest child, Germaine helped to provide for her siblings, regularly collecting the kindling that was necessary to cook a meal on the wood stove. Germaine first drove at age 9 and continued her love for traveling throughout the western United States. As a young woman, Germaine was known for her incredible beauty and voice, often performing at schools. Always a hard worker Germaine held several jobs in the "Potato Sheds" throughout Perris, Nuevo, Lakeview and surrounding areas. She would often work two jobs to provide for special occasions. Once she took a job as a taxi driver at night to pay for her daughter's formal dress. Later in life she proudly purchased and founded farming and agricultural operations in California and Idaho. 

Germaine, as a member of the Pico family, was honored in 2010 by the city of Perris and County of Riverside as a member of a local Pioneer family. Germaine had one child, Christine, who she primarily raised as a single parent. She taught her daughter the importance of family, hard work, and being involved in her tribal community. And from those teachings Christine passed those principles onto her four children. 
Germaine was a loving and caring mother and grandmother. She was active and present in her family's everyday life. She routinely volunteered to take her grandchildren to their activities and transport them to school. The car rides were never boring because she had great stories and would rock out to her favorite music. 
Music was a huge part of her life, she loved the music from the 1960's and 1970's. Some of her favorite artists included Al Green, Ella Fitzgerald, Marvin Gay, and George Harrison. Germaine was a devoted catholic and was known to say the rosary every night before bed. She constantly prayed for her family, friends, and those who were less fortunate. 

She taught her grandchildren about the many catholic saints and the lessons that can be learned from them. Germaine chose to give to various Native American charities and in general to people in need. Germaine was an enrolled member of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians having served in many elected capacities for the Tribe. In 1998 she began her tenure as a Pechanga Cultural Committee Member. She then served as Chairwoman of the Cultural Committee in 2001. - 

What Happens is Vegas Stays In Vegas, What Happens to YOU in Indian Casinos Doesn't Matter.

Attorney Christoper Dolan has a series in the San Francisco Examiner that discusses how YOU, the customer are not bringing your rights as an American onto tribal reservations where they wan't you to spend your hard earned dollars.

KNOW BEFORE YOU GO, is not only for China, Russia and N. Korea.  Remember the Pechanga Beating Victim Richard Swan?  When the guards beat you down, are you comfortable spending your money there?


It discusses a very unique, and in many instances unfair, application of the law applying to a group of businesses that routinely violates peoples’ legal rights with absolute immunity: American Indian tribes.

I want to make it clear, I am not opposed to self-determination, cultural preservation, Indian self-governance or even the right of the Indian Nations to take money from anyone willing to gamble it away. What I am against is using the concept of national sovereignty to deny people their basic rights to safety and fair treatment. Ironically, Native Americans, themselves the subject of genocide and centuries of state-sponsored discrimination and civil-rights abuse, exempt themselves from adhering to any legal protections against discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc.

There is a very dangerous and well-kept secret that lies behind the billion-dollar Indian gambling empire. What people don’t understand is that when you turn off the highway and pull into the parking lot of an Indian casino, you have left the state of California — and even the United States — and you have entered the land of a sovereign nation. Yep, that’s right, even though you are eating the same food, drinking the same booze, listening to the same music, using the same currency, working the same hours (if you are an employee), you are no longer protected by the laws of California or the United States.

As hard as it is to believe, even though you have not crossed through a traditional boarder, you have crossed into the twilight zone of tribal law. My hope is that those of you who travel to and spend your hard-earned money at Indian casinos understand that the risks you take are far greater than merely losing your paycheck — you lose many of your important rights.

READ MORE AT THE LINK ABOVE

Riverside Press Enterprise TO BE SOLD! Maybe The New Owner Will PRINT NEWS?

The Riverside Press-Enterprise is expected to be sold for $27.25 million later this month to Freedom Communications, owner of the Orange County Register, according to announcements from both newspapers.  Let's hope we see an improvement on the stories that get out.

Chukchansi Faction WHINES About Support For North Fork Rancheria

Wah!  The stinking corrupt leaders of the Picayune Rancheria now care about the WILL of the CA voters?  Bet the voters wouldn't like them MACING their elders... Here's a letter to the editor of the Sierra Star News.

The Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians Tribe has long stood opposed to the illegal, off-reservation North Fork casino, proposed for 99 more than 35 miles from the Mono Tribe's land. This off-reservation casino absolutely flies in the face of the will of California's voters and their "yes" vote on Proposition 1A in 2000.

Just as importantly from our perspective, the illegal North Fork casino will decimate our 10-year, $350 million investment in the Chukchansi Gold Casino – Madera County's largest employer, supporting more than 1,100 jobs and annually pumping millions of dollars into the county economy.

Madera County Supervisor Tom Wheeler ignored these critical points in his comments in "Funds pour in to put North Fork casino on the ballot" in the Sept. 24 edition of the Star. Supervisor Wheeler touts the proposed Mono casino as an economic benefit without acknowledging that most of the dollars North Fork would earn and the jobs that illegal casino might create will come at the expense of our tribe, our casino and the more than 1,000 Madera County families who rely on Chukchansi Gold for a paycheck.

Supervisor Wheeler rails against what he calls "an intrusion of our local economic development and land use planning authority."

We'll make the obvious point: What about the economic development opportunities our tribe will lose if this casino is built?

MY RESPONSE:

This faction of the Chukchansie Tribal Councils asks the QUESTION: What about the economic development opportunities our tribe will lose if this casino is built? ANSWER: WHAT ABOUT IT? Your tribe was given those opportunities when you promised to help your tribal members. Instead, you embarrass Indian Country by your harmful actions of terminating 60% of your tribe. We write about that at ( http://originalpechanga.com/ ) You FURTHER embarrass yourselves when you pay Cal State Fresno to preserve your language AFTER getting rid of language speakers. 

While in Washington DC last week, we were able to tell the Director of the House Subcommittee On Indian and Alaskan Native Affair what harm you have done. While reservation shopping is NOT ideal, in THIS case, to provide competition that may have the ADDED benefit of putting YOUR TRIBE out of business...is a GOOD THING. People should STAY AWAY from YOUR business entity based on this simple premise: 

IF YOU WILL CHEAT and HARM YOUR OWN PEOPLE, won't you do the same to your customers?

NCAI and NARF Advise Tribes to Stay Away from Supreme Court. NARF Refused to help Individual Indians With Corrupt Tribal Leaders.

 Susan Shannon has the story for NPR.    We went to NARF for help and they refused.  Do they care about individual Indians losing their rights at the hands of corrupt tribes?

The relationship between the Supreme Court of the United States and Native Americans has a rocky history and recent rulings have not gone the way Indian Country hoped. The Supreme Court, friend or foe, is charged with interpreting the law of the land.


“We clearly saw, as tribal leaders did, this developing disturbing trend in the U.S. Supreme Court to basically rule against Indian tribes and Indian interest in virtually any case that came to the Supreme Court such that the winning record we had had beginning in the 1970's, when the Native American Rights Fund started, had turned into a losing record where basically three out of every four Indian law cases argued before that Court resulted in significant losses,” Echohawk said.

“Tribal leaders wanted to try to do something about that so they formed this project and basically what we do is, together with the National Congress of American Indians, is to work with tribal attorneys and tribal leaders and Indian law professors and supreme court practitioners across the country on each of these cases as it approached the Supreme Court or gets accepted by the Supreme court,“ Echohawk said.

Please SIGN a Petition to STOP the ETHNIC CLEANSING of the NOOKSACK 306.

We have written about what has been happening to the NOOKSACK 306 before. Now, they are adding a petition to their cause. YOU can help by signing this Petition to Stop Ethnic Cleansing of the Nooksack Tribe

PLEASE ADD your name, and sign for any adult in your household. These issues affect ALL of us. Justice should not be just for ourselves, but for those who have been oppressed by corrupt tribal leaders.

Learn More on Disenrollment, Ethnic Cleansing in Indian Gaming Country at these Links:

Gaming Revenue Blamed for Disenrollment

disenrollment is paper Genocide

CA Tribal Cleansing

Tribal terrorism

TRIBAL TERRORISM includes Banishment

Nooksack Disenrollment

Treating Sovereign Tribal Nations DIFFERENTLY. Take Each Tribe and Judge Them On their OWN MERITS. Pechanga and San Manuel are NOT The Same Because They Are Both Native American Tribes.

On our recent trip to Washington DC, we pressed the point with Congressional staff that because they might approve ONE tribe's water bill, it didn't mean they had to approve another tribe's bill if that tribe, Pechanga was lying to Congress, AGAIN. (See: Why Pechanga Chairman Macarro Can’t Be Believed)
Pechanga is a tribe that has harmed their people, plain and simple, taken their identity and trashed it. Forced an Apartheid system on the reservation and is NOW attempting to steal water rights from the very Indians for whom they were intended.

Please share this post on Twitter:  @dochastings @USIndianAffairs @Barbara Boxer @IndianCommittee



I posted this way back in June 2007 and it still does apply. We are on vacation and hope you remember this post

I hope from what you read here, you do NOT get the impression that we are against tribal gaming. That is not true. The links tell the story of what's happening at Pechanga, Snoqualmie in Washington State and other reservations like Chukchansi and Pala. Feel free to comment, they are open.

Tribal gaming has helped many tribes in CA, come out of poverty, Pechanga included. Many of the Pechanga people are uneducated and I remember they were so excited when they qualified for a Target credit card. Unfortunately, with success, greed soon follows. Instead of helping all their people, including those they placed in a moratorium hold, who rightfully belonged to the tribe they looked at who they could get rid of to increase their per capita. And, unfortunately, the money hasn't made everyone happy.

But the facts are clear, most tribes have not treated their people as abominably as Pechanga, Redding Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria, Snoqualmie and others have treated their people. In fact it's more like Tribal Terrorism

I have expressed earlier that I am FOR expanded gaming, for those tribes that haven't gotten to the table yet.

Reconciling MORAL OUTRAGE at Pechanga Tribe with Self Determination

Here is an excellent article by Sheryl Lightfoot about how to support sovereignty issues, while not supporting the actions when they are morally repugnant, such as Pechanga's disenrollment of 25% of their tribe in order to enrich the remaining members.

Sheryl Lightfoot Article

In order to be sovereign nations, we must act like sovereign nations. But that does not mean that in order to support self-determination in principle, we need to agree with every decision of other sovereign nations. Nation-states in the international system do not always agree with the internal actions of other nation-states, yet they nearly always accept the principle of the equal sovereignty of all nation-states within the international system (with certain notable exceptions like the Iraq invasion or humanitarian interventions). When a nation-state, a group of nation-states, or private citizens of other nation-states disagree with the internal actions of another nation-state, there are a number of possible avenues of action.

First, sovereign nation-states can register a diplomatic complaint with the government of the offending nation-state. This is done all the time in the international system. The U.S. Department of State often drafts and delivers letters of protest to the diplomats and officials of other governments over areas of disagreement. Likewise, the executives of our indigenous nations have the right, if not the moral responsibility, to send letters and make phone calls of complaint directly to the executives of the Cherokee Nation, expressing their concern over the disenrollment decision. This can be done while supporting the inherent right of an indigenous nation to determine its own membership.

Another tactic which can be employed by other indigenous nations or the private citizens of other nations is the art of moral persuasion, or ''moral suasion,'' as it has also been termed. This involves a campaign of exposure and embarrassment. (OP: This is what we've been pursuring for 8 years now) This tactic has most often been employed in international human rights campaigns, with the purpose being to expose the immoral government action in the media and open up international discussion in order to embarrass the target government into changing its policy to better conform to international norms. This was done in the early days of the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and has been used often by groups like Amnesty International to urge governments to stop human rights abuses. OP: Now, tribes like Pechanga practice APARTHEID on their reservations.


My view is this:

As mentioned on other sites, tribal sovereignty is something that should be nurtured and cherished. Many now believe that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from Temecula, CA will be responsible for the quick erosion of sovereignty, that tribes have fought for for centuries. The question was asked, "what could be done?".

Frankly, economic sanctions of another nation, plus public embarrassment may be the only course of action that is effective. For instance, in South Africa, it was their SOVEREIGN RIGHT as a free nation to impose apartheid on their country.

What recourse did civilized countries use to bring down this hateful policy? Economic sanctions and world ridicule of the policy. No trade, no travel, no money. Final result, end of apartheid and a welcome back to South Africa into the world community.
Similarly, citizens of the United States (OP: AND California especially) can impose their own economic sanctions on the Tribal Nation of Pechanga by boycotting their nation.

Stop patronizing their casinos, hotel, restaurants and their powwows. Let them know that we do not agree with their system of denying civil rights to their people and until they follow their own tribal law, citizens of our country will NOT support their nation, but will patronize (OP: In other words, support tribal gaming elsewhere) their competitor nations.

Also, letting state and federal representatives know that we expect them not to support a nation that would treat its citizens this way, especially NOT to allow them increased monetary benefits by expanding their casino slot machines. OP: BIA? HELLO? ANYONE THERE? Larry Echohawk, your righteousness is calling, it misses you.

Readers, there are 250 members of the band that were disenrolled and 500 people who are caught in Pechanga's illegal moratorium (illegal in that SOVEREIGN nation, against the sovereign nation of Pechanga's own constitution) Pechanga and its chairman, Mark Macarro deserves no benefit from violations of their laws and against citizens of the United States. Chukchansi has exterminated 70% of it's tribe, Redding 25%. Elders and children abused by unconstitutional acts under the BIA's watchful eye.

Please ask your friends to read our blog and share it on social media and friends, please let me know your opinion by posting comments.