PALA Tribal Abuse: Aguayo Reply Brief Details GOVT. Mishandling of Trust Responsibilty

We wrote about the Pala tribe's victory in court, where the BIA was able to throw FEDERALLY enrolled Natives under the bus in Nov 2014. Judge Cynthia Bashant wasted no time in denying Plaintiff's motion, saying it was a membership issue.   See Documents here: Aguayo v. Jewell   @

NOT SO FAST your Honor...
You can Find the Aguayo Reply Brief here

Sally Jewell doesn't swear to protect ALL Natives

The Pala Disenrolled defense team has file answer briefs in their appeal. Including the fact that the court beloved Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (which the court uses to weasel out of making decisions) DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

MONEY 1: 

The BIA’s website also acknowledges the legal distinction for federally

acknowledged tribal members. “The rights, protections and services provided by

the United States to individual American Indians...flow...because he or she is a

member of a recognized tribe.”  
With regard to the legal relationship

between a tribal government and an “applicant” for enrollment, all federal duties

 Case: 14-56909, 07/23/2015, ID: 9620068, DktEntry: 31-1, Page 12 of 43

3

flow toward the tribal government. However, the rights of federally recognized

tribal members invoke an entirely different set of relationships. “The federal

government has the duty to protect [enrolled] individual tribal members even from

their own government.”  

BIA, you've got some 'splaining to do!

MONEY II

Respondents argue, “unable to bring a direct action to enforce tribal law against the Pala Band or the Pala officials, the Aguayo Plaintiffs petitioned for agency intervention and then filed the present suit to compel agency enforcement against the Pala Band.” (RB p. 31) Not so. In appellants’ case, the Pala Band’s EC invited agency examination of the Band’s governing documents by its letter Case: 14-56909, 07/23/2015, ID: 9620068, DktEntry: 31-1, Page 13 of 43 This Court may take judicial notice of prior court records in this action. 3 Evidence Rule 201 allows courts to take notice of matters of record in other court proceedings “both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 dated February 3, 2012, instructing appellants to “appeal” the EC’s action to BIA.   Appellants filed their appeal and challenged the governing documents.  The Pala Band participated in the appeal.  

Who you going to believe, the legal documents of PALA?  You know, the SOVEREIGN giving direction?

MONEY III

C. Failure of the Band to ratify the new constitution which replaced the Articles of Association requires the BIA to rescind Regional’s approval of the 1997 Constitution. Here, as emphasized, the new constitution transferred virtually most of the tribal power from the Band’s General Council to six individuals who comprise of the Band’s “Executive Committee.” [ER 194-195, ¶ 8] According to the agency record, BIA employee Elsie Lucero states that the constitution was never ratified.

Wait! An UNRATIFIED Constitution  should have NO power.  That would mean that Robert Smith and the EC are ACTING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LAW.  That would invalidate ANY business dealings they put together.... right??

MONEY IV

OUCH ; THE AS-IA’S DECISION TO RECOGNIZE A VOID ENROLLMENT ORDINANCE ENACTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY IN A CONSTITUTION WHICH WAS NEVER

RATIFIED BY THE BAND AS A WHOLE VIOLATES THE  AS-IA’S TRUST RESPONSIBILITY.

An election would have required the Pala Band to submit “an agenda, [and] meeting minutes of an election committee which adopted the revised Constitution...rulesregarding how each voting member was to cast their votes, including absentee ballots for tribal members who do not live on the reservation.”

READ the brief for more.  Great job by the Emblem legal team.