Thanks to Indianz.com for linking to my blog
 |
| NOT LEAVING DRIVEN OUT with ASSISTANCE of the BIA |
We posted last month about the loss at the 9th circuit. In reading the case from our layman's position, it seemed CLEAR the appeals court took the easy road to dismiss the case.
They didn't even see that it was the Federal government's trust responsibility to Natives to protect their rights.
- The Department has a discrete legal trust duty under 25 U.S.C. § 2 toensure tribal governing documents are legitimately adopted by the Tribe as a whole.
- Petitioners also contend that the Department has a legal trust duty to honorfinal decisions between the Department and the tribal government. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(2); 9th Cir.R. 35(a)(2).
- When the Department legally recognizes a tribal constitution and enrollment ordinance not passed by the majority of tribal members, it violates the Department’s trust responsibility and invites tribal corruption, oppression, tyranny and dictatorship.
Here is the filing, please, read, comment and SHARE. Are you following me on Twitter @opechanga.
Keep fighting, something will eventually work and The Pala EC will be no more, the Brittains belong and the EC knows it. If they were in the right, they would publish their paperwork and provide verified official copies, but they never ever deny allegations, they just claim sovereignty. But it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect Native Americans from Evil and Corrupt leaders who are using sovereignty to commit tribal genocide.
ReplyDeleteI think that IRA tribal governments allow oversight by the federal BIA to finalize and approve tribal constitutions and governing documents, but not all tribes fall under the Indian Reorginization Act (IRA), especially in California, more specifically Southern California where no tribes adopted IRA Constitutions, they held out until the 1960s to krganize tribal governments under their own governing oversight. Unless the tribe specifically grants the BIA the power to approve governing documents and/or oversee that particular process, including governmental functions, I dont think the USC code woukd apply. Especially if Santa Clara v. Pueblo specifically defines how enrollment , due process, and Civil Right violations are to be handled in cases involving tribal communitites and interventions by the federal government.
ReplyDeleteBUT if the BIA made a decision in 1989 and recorder it as a final decision for all intent as far as the BIA, doesn't become Tribal Law.
ReplyDeleteAnd if so what gives these 6 people the right to overturn a final decision made by the Department of the Interior.
This is just not right for so called Leaders of the Tribe to do these things because they don't like certain people.
The leaders have taken away all of their rights and provide no due process to the affected people.
The law is leaving no choices for them and treating them like stray dogs.
I have seen animals treated better than these people.
Like the person that was convicted of kicking their dog and the Court ordered them to 90 days in jail and fined them 10 thousand dollars and 3 years probation.
Then these leaders take away the rights of these Indian people and get protected by chicken shit Governments and District Attorneys for a little under the table cash.
Tgats a bunch of bullshit and needs to be dealt with.
why dosent Robert,show his paper work?because he doesn't have none,how about it mel.Lavato put your paper work her,you started all this,you and your grandmother.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Robert Smith the Chairman of the Land into Trust Con. of Calif.
ReplyDeleteIf so then he would be aware of the statements made by the Regional
office of the BIA on "ALL" land into trust final documents.
Including the statements that the Pala Band is Governed by the Articles of Association in the Letter from Regional approving there
application as recent as last year.
The PBMI Articles of Association had to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, as delegated to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The Articles of Association specifically require Secretarial approval of all amendments. The BIA knew that the Pala Constitution required Secretarial approval because the Band's laws called for it. However, the BIA made a ruling that PBMI was not an IRA tribe and so Agency approval was not required, then they issued approval retroactively.
ReplyDeleteThere was definitely something wrong with the whole PBMI Constitutional development and approval process. And as the last comment states the Articles of Association are still referred to as the governing document of the Band over 25 years after the PBMI Constitution was purportedly ratified and approved.
I have a list of inconsistent and erroneous actions associated with the PBMI Constitution. The PBMI General Council adopted a series of amendments to the Articles of Association which they called a Constitution in 1994 by a non-majority vote. The BIA said that since the Articles of Association required Secretarial approval for amendments that they would withhold approval pending technical reivew. There was a technical review, recommendations for revision were made, and then the revisions were incorporated. The BIA then decided that the amended Articles of Association would be considered a proposed Constitution. They retyped the document and underlined the changes that were made.
The PBMI Executive Committee then held a General Council meeting with short notice, ratified the retyped proposed Constitution by a vote of 27 to 0 in a Band of over 800 members, and said since it was adopted in 1994, and ratified in 1997, that the BIA should issue approval. The document that was ratified in 1997 is not the same document that was adopted by the PBMI General Council. There were changes made that were never reviewed or approved by the GC. Robert Smith lied and said that the GC decided not to incorporate the recommendations of Acting RD Amy Dutschke. The BIA never verified that the Constitution was properly ratified by majority vote in an election.
It was all wrong, but no appeal of the approval was ever made. Mostly because the Pala GC was never informed that approval was issued retroactively, that important revisions were never incorporated, that the BIA would issue approval without the GC seeing the new document, having an opportunity to discuss the changes, and without an election. And who would bring such an appeal? The BIA only listens to tribal leaders and would reject an appeal that was brought by individuals or by the General Council.
That's how the BIA actively participated in the scheme to usurp the power of the PBMI General Council. These irregularities have been swept under the rug because the statute of limitation on appeal of the approval has expired. So even though the approval was improper, it's too late to argue about it now.