anotherview[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:40 PM:Unfortunately, in writing about tribal membership disputes, journalists join money with the controversy. Of course, this technique naturally gains more audience. Yet, the facts of tribal membership or lack thereof have nothing at all to with money. Moreover, the implication that tribal greed motivates tribal disenrollment has no foundation. After all, before the advent of tribal casinos, some tribes engaged in disenrolling individuals with inadequate membership credentials, to correct errors in the tribal roll. Facts and hard information supported by research and investigation typify the tribal government process of determining tribal membership. Afterward, a careful judgment then takes place, sometimes resulting in a disenrollment. Yes, the advent of tribal casinos does generally coincide with a rise in tribal disenrollments. Part of the impetus for disenrolling individuals now, lies in their simply not deserving tribal rights, benefits, and privileges. For a long time, the tribes have tolerated these undeserving individuals. The jig is up. The moment has come to address and resolve the longstanding questions associated with these undeserving individuals and their false claims. Their disenrollment, where appropriate and justified, accomplishes this desirable end.
To another view,
Yes corrections in memberships have been performed in Pechanga history. The corrections only involved individuals not entire extended families. Extended families that meet the Bands requirements as discovered by the Bands own hired expert Dr. John Johnson.Not only greed but a play for political power is the driving force behind tribal Factions such as the CPP (Concerned Pechanga People). This faction is full of criminals, and the FBI and BIA are fully aware of what is going on. The CPP by action will be the downfall of Pechanga.
San Pasqual tribe could expel about 80 members
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pechanga
The Drip "Source of Life"
10 comments:
Journalists are correct to join disenrollments and money together.
Pechanga's CPP has only money in mind, otherwise, they would have gotten rid of the Salazar connection RIGHT AWAY and not allowed Butch Murphy's progeny any rights.
It's a lie that they have been successful in perpetrating.
Tribes are not the harmonious band of people that non Indians think they are. There are always schisms and factions that do not get along with one another. What happens when one small group gains complete control of the Tribe with the added incentive of millions of dollars in their pockets (people have been killed for much less). What happens when your accusers become your judge and jury (this is what happened to us).
Before the Tribe had anything they were happy to have us as members, it wasn't until it looked like they were going to get something that memberships were questioned. Our family has been recognized as members of the tribe for over 100 years according to the records on file with the BIA.
It is a fact that our ancestor Paulina Hunter was an Indian that lived in the original Temecula Indian village. She was also recognized by members of that tribe as a member via witnessed and certified documents of that period. She was evicted along with the rest of the tribe from that village and moved to the area known as Pechanga to live with them. One of the most revered and respected members of the Tribe most recently wrote before his death in a signed and witnessed document stating that he knew her personally as a member of the tribe. Members who were alive at the time of the creation of the reservation said they knew her personally as a member of the Tribe, they also gave signed witnessed documents stating that they knew her as a member of the tribe. Tribal elders also gave signed and witnessed statements during our hearing that they have always recognized the Hunters as members of the tribe.
Now more than a hundred years after her death, people are trying to say that she was some other kind of Indian, who just happened to live with the tribe in the original village, and the people from that tribe mistakenly believed she was a member. They say that she just happened to be kicked out of the original village to move to Pechanga with the rest of the Tribe to live. They say that the government mistakenly gave her a allotment on the reservation as a Pechanga Indian. That she is listed on the original Pechanga Reservation records as a Temecula Pechanga Indian by mistake (that I might add happened year after year, every year until her death). That tribal members from the period were mistaken when they gave signed witnessed depositions stating that they knew her as a member of the tribe. The disenrollment committee also hired Dr John Johnson, curator of Anthropology at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History to check on her. But much to their dismay he came back with a report saying that he was 90% sure (he now says he is 100% sure) that she was a Pechanga Indian
Then they say that the small group known as the CPP (who I might add had previously tried to take over the tribe earlier, but was shot down by the BIA) tell us that THEY know who are "real" members, and that documents mean NOTHING.
We were even told by one member of the dis enrollment committee that we were going to be dis enrolled no matter WHAT documents we provided. One member even slept throughout our hearing. We were told we could NOT take in writing tools or paper, and could NOT have legal representation, nor given a transcript of the hearings.
Just to let those who are unaware of the history, Pechanga was the name of a place not a tribe, our tribe moved to the area known as Pechanga and later established the reservation on that land known as The Pechanga Reservation.
According to Dr Johnson's report, Mateo Quasicac Paulina Hunter's father was born in Pechanga (this was before there was a reservation). In fact he is the only Indian listed in the mission records as being born at Pechanga. So it 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 calming she was some other kind of Indian?
You might ask "if it is a small group, why hasn't the rest of the Tribe tried to put a stop it". Well they DID try a couple years back. In the largest gathering of our Tribe in recorded history, they voted to STOP ALL dis enrollments and remove the dis enrollment process from Tribal law by a HUGE margin. Well this so shocked the group 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 overthrow the vote of the people and dis enroll the Hunters any ways. With such a HUGE voting block now dis enrolled they now have assured their control and take over of the tribe.
Those who are left live in fear on the Rez, and worry that if they now speak up that something will be done to them also.
Having read, analyzed, and understood the documentation the BIA put together during its probate of the estate of Paulina Hunter (nee Walla), I can tell you, Gentle Reader, that the individual sworn statements refer to Paulina as a neighbor, not as an Indian. Further, the BIA has no Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood for Paulina -- meaning it did not track her as an Indian. The record shows the parents of Paulina as Mateo Walla and Eulalia, but nobody knows their ancestry. In a letter of 50 years ago, Emily Hunter Judkins, a descendant of Paulina, wrote to the BIA asking how to become a member at Pechanga. Obviously, this request indicated she did not have tribal membership. In turn, it means her ancestor Paulina did not have it. Nobody has ever produced a birth record for Paulina. The list of counter-facts goes on. In short, the Hunter family lost its membership at Pechanga because it did not have the facts on its side. This disenrollment corrected an error in the membership roll.
The one document you do not understand is that Antonio Ahsman said he knew "Paulina Hunter as a member of the Band." FACT!
The BIA DID track Paulinas descendants CDIB, therfore they are indian and so was Paiulina. FACT
The record you point to I assume is her parents marriage record.
The FACT is you have no counter facts. Just misguided and unfounded statements.
The enrollment committee hired an anthropologist and he concluded that Paulina was a Pechanga indian.
Her Father was the only indian in the Padrons as being from Pechanga.
Read his report.
As far as producing a birth record for Paulina. Try producing a birth or baptismal record for any indian born at that time, even your line. Paulina was born in the early 1800's around 1838. Can you produce a birth record for your family at that time?
Again are you calling Antonio Ashman, or Solida Stevonson a lier?
Anonymous said...
Having read, analyzed, and understood the documentation the BIA put together during its probate of the estate of Paulina Hunter (nee Walla)
It is very easy to pick and choose information you want, and ignore that information that does not support your stance. I can show you in the Bible where it says "there is no God", but you can't pick it to pieces and ignore the part where it says "the fool has said in his heart". You may interpet the statement where it says "I knew her as a neighbor when we lived together" as meening that she was not a member, but you can not (or should not) throw out further statements by those saying that they knew Palina Hunter as a Pechanga Indian". Why throw out the research done by your own expert! You need to take the whole body of information and only then can you see the complete picture.
You can say "This disenrollment corrected an error in the membership roll." if it was an error then it is an error that has persisted for over 100 years, both in the reservation census records AND in the minds of people who knew her personally.
I find it interesting that any comment against the Hunter family is always signed anonymously. If you are so sure of your position, please have the conviction to speak out personally unless you are afraid of the consequences. Second thought, you should be afraid because the consequences are extreme, as you well know.
Pechanga is the worst offender of democracy that ever existed! Freedom of speech is discouraged, undue process practiced, and the vote of the people ignored. It is a 3rd World Country unto itself! If native nations lose their sovereignty, Pechanga can lead the pack in causing it.
Frances Miranda's ancester Candelaria Flores was on the Soboba Census records in the 1890's. On the census records it is noted if you are actually an indian from another tribe and living there, if you are white, if you are mexican, etc. Candelaria had no such remarks. IS THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS A SOBOBA INDIAN?
Frances got a letter from the chairman from Soboba saying Candelaria was never considered a member of the tribe. IS HE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF FRANCES?
One piece of documentation that Frances turned in on her family was a blank ration from Pechanga from the early 1900's . Not a requirement and meaningless because there was no name on it.
That family didn't have documentation anywhere close to the documentation the Hunters turned in but they are in the tribe.
CORRUPTION AT IT'S FINEST.
THE INDICTMENTS ARE COMING DOWN, THE BOOKS WILL BE OPENED, AND PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL.
Frances Miranda's ancester Candelaria Flores was on the Soboba Census records in the 1890's. On the census records it is noted if you are actually an indian from another tribe and living there, if you are white, if you are mexican, etc. Candelaria had no such remarks. IS THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS A SOBOBA INDIAN?
Frances got a letter from the chairman from Soboba saying Candelaria was never considered a member of the tribe. IS HE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF FRANCES?
One piece of documentation that Frances turned in on her family was a blank ration from Pechanga from the early 1900's . Not a requirement and meaningless because there was no name on it.
That family didn't have documentation anywhere close to the documentation the Hunters turned in but they are in the tribe.
CORRUPTION AT IT'S FINEST.
THE INDICTMENTS ARE COMING DOWN, THE BOOKS WILL BE OPENED, AND PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL.
The BIA didn't track Paulina Hunter as any Indian?
Well if that is the case, then why do all of Paulina's descedants who have gone through probate for their share of Paulina's land allotment have probate paperwork that calls their loved ones, "deceased Pechanga Indian allottees?"
Some of these probate hearings have occured even after the disenrollment of the Hunters!
Clearly the BIA still considers the Hunters Pechanga even if officially the tribe does not.
The testimony "our gentle reader" refers to is during the probate hearings for Paulina's allotment in 1915 in which tribal elder Dolores Tortuga, 65 years old at the time and who would know the tribe's history and people well who said when asked, "were you aquainted with the deceased Pechanga Indian allottee Paulina Hunter during her lifetime?"
Tortuga's response was, "yes I knew her as a neighbor when we Pechanga Indians lived on the Pauba Ranch near Temecula, California."
Clearly the probate judge was affirming that Paulina was an Pechanga Indian allottee, not a non Indian who got an allottment and the witness was including Paulina as part of "we Pechanga Indians."
It is obvious our "gentle reader's" interpretation of the record is faulty.
Also, the enrollment committee acknowledges in their Record of Decision on page 24 for the Hunter family's case, "A trust patent was issued to Paulina Hunter on August 31, 1897. Doc 33. The patent listed Paulina Hunter as an Indian of the Temecula tribe or band. Doc 33.
As far as one of Paulina's descedants inquiring
about tribal membership fifty years ago, back then the BIA often handled membership issues and it wasn't until later that tribes started to handle membership issues on their own.
The question is if Paulina Hunter was Pechanga and one of her descendants asking the BIA about membership in about 1957 has nothing to do with this as the reservation was created in the 1880's not in 1957!
The question about Paulina's ancestors being Indians is answered by the tribe's own hired expert. Dr. John Johnson explains this in his report commissioned by Pechanga's enrollment committee.
He indentifies Paulina's father as Mateo Quasicac,which is a different last name than Walla that is in Paulina's wedding record to Thomas Gordon Hunter but he explains the difference in last names that popped up in some of the historical records, not just for our family but for many Pechanga families.
From Dr. Johnson's report, page 3: "Many Indian families of this period were adopting the use of surnames, as was the Euro-American custom. the Church records show there was considerable experimentation with surname usage by all former Mission Indians. A variety of surnames would be used, even within the same family, before one version was finally chosen that continued to be used as an inherited family name."
There, we have answered our "gentle reader's" charges again, how many times do we have to do this?
Added on to what "Spirit of Pechanga" said, the descendants of Candelaria Nesecat Flores were one of the families cleared by only three enrollment committee members because seven out of the ten member committee were suspended from the committee pending investigation for disenrollment of their family lines.
Francis Miranda is one of her descendants and when her family was cleared without a lawful quorum of the committee she was reinstated to the committee and she voted on our case and that of the Manuela Mirandas (by the way blood relatives of her).
Family members of ours and the M Mirandas had filed papers questioning her and others' membership but she (and they) were allowed to vote on our cases!
In our case the deciding votes against us were all from famlies our family members had filed papers on questioning their membership.
AS I SAID ON A THREAD ON ANOTHER BLOG, IF WE HAD BEEN CLEARED FOR DISENROLLMENT, SHOULD WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THE CASES OF PEOPLE WHO HAD FILED PAPERS AGAINST US?
NO!
In our Record of Decison it says there was a legal quorum of the committee present, even if it was only six members.
Does the Record of Decision clearing the descendants of Canderaria Flores say the same thing?
No, because there wasn't a legal quorum!
Why does our ROD say legal quorum if their's didn't need one?
CAN WE SAY DOUBLE STANDARD?
Post a Comment