Are Bylaws and Constitutions important?

In an article from the Fay Observer a tribal member questions the Tribal council regarding the Tribes constitution.

Tribal member Eric Locklear questioned the constitutionality of the Lumbee Supreme Court during a public comment period. He told the council that the court does not meet the requirements outlined in the tribe’s constitution and therefore is a defunct court.

Why it matters: The constitution requires that the court have five members including one with a law degree. Currently, the court has four members. None has a law degree.

This topic shows how a tribal government should work when it is corruption free.

One of the questions that the CPP (Corrupt Pechanga People) will not answer is, “why was the enrollment committee allowed to operate without a legal quorum during several important enrollment processes?” The only answer that comes to mind, is the Corrupt Pechanga People AKA CPP were going to run rough shot over anyone to get rid of two large voting blocks 25% of the tribe before two major elections.

The CPP then pressured people to ignore the constitution and bylaws to finish what they started thirty years ago.

If it is important enough for a tribal member to ask about the constitution in regards to their Supreme court, I find I fitting to ask the same question in regards to our enrollment committee and our constitution or bylaws in regards to our heritage as Indian people.

Dry Creek band follows neighbors at Robinson Rancheria

Dry Creek tribes seeks to oust 73 members


More than 70 members of the Dry Creek Rancheria, which owns Sonoma County’s only Indian casino, were notified last week that they are being removed from the tribe.
In a controversy increasingly played out with tribes that operate casinos, the members are being pushed out because they were unable to document their lineage or were affiliated in the past with other tribes.
Critics contend the ousters are about power and greed — the fewer members in the tribe, the larger the share each receives in casino profits. The expulsions, including the ones at the Dry Creek Band of Pomo Indians, often surface during a tribal election when the legitimacy of candidates is questioned.

Leaders of the 965 member tribe, however, say it is not just about money, but preserving identity.


T'eetilawuncha: These problems continue, long standing members being questioned only after Casino money is introduced to these reservations. Many tribes wanted as many members as possible to gain federal recognition and funding. Lineage was never questioned until casino money was at stake and who was going to control it. Greed and power struggles, but we all know the truth.

A similar battle over tribal membership has erupted in neighboring Lake County. Leaders of the Robinson Rancheria Pomos, who operate a casino on the north shore of Clear Lake, approved the “disenrollment” of 50 people last month. T'eetilawuncha: It's like wildfire, one fire starts and the winds blow.

Since 2000, when the passage of Proposition 1A legalized Las Vegas-style gambling at Indian casinos in California — which has grown into a $7.8 billion annual industry — more than 2,200 members have been purged from about 20 tribes, according to an activist who tracks the issue.

San Pasqual in the news

What happened an San Pasqual


Will the government fulfill it's trust obligation to the Alto family?

What happens when one faction gains complete control over it's tribal government?

Was the Alto famlies civil rights violated?

San Manuel outshine Pechanga again

Convicted tribal members fined, banned from reservation

Pechanga, has a large criminal element linked to several CPP members. Stop sheltering these criminal elements and do the right thing.

(San Bernardino County Sun (CA) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Jan. 9--SAN MANUEL INDIAN RESERVATION -- In an unprecedented move, San Manuel Chairman James Ramos has announced his tribe's decision to fine two convicted tribal members linked to a murder conspiracy and ban them from the reservation.

Decisions made by the tribal council, composed of all tribal members over age 21, typically remain private matters within the tribe and are never made public.Ramos said the tribal council's Dec. 13 decision to ban Stacy Barajas-Nunez 26, and her brother, Erik Barajas, 36, from the reservation and fine them a "considerable" amount of money for disorderly conduct speaks volumes to the tribe's position of holding its members accountable for errant behavior.

"This isn't just lip service. This is action in force," Ramos said. "We're actually taking action, and showing through action, with overwhelming support, to impose fines and bans on our own tribal members."Ramos wouldn't disclose how much the Barajases were fined or how long they will be banned from the reservation. He did say the tribe is enforcing its decision, and working with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and the District Attorney's Office to ensure that the Barajases remain in compliance.Erik Barajas' San Bernardino attorney, Chuck Nascin, declined to comment Friday.Barajas-Nunez's attorney, Albert Perez Jr., didn't return phone calls seeking comment.San Bernardino police and agents from the federal Drug EnforcementAdministration arrested the siblings in December 2006 during a joint investigation into the Mexican Mafia's methamphetamine rackets in the San Bernardino area. Authorities learned during that investigation of a conspiracy hatched by the Barajases and several others, including two high ranking members of the Mexican Mafia, to kill Leonard Epps.The murder conspiracy stemmed from an altercation Erik Barajas had with Epps at the now closed Brass Key bar in Highland. Epps, who remains in hiding, was the former manager of the bar.On Nov. 6, the Barajases were sentenced to five years probation for their roles in the murder conspiracy. Judge Michael Dest told the pair their sentences were not light ones, and they could face "double digit" prison time if they violated the terms of their probation.Two weeks after her sentencing, sheriff's deputies arrested Barajas-Nunez for trespassing at San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino. The tribe had previously ordered her to stay away from the casino.Deputy District Attorney Douglas Poston says that's a violation of probation. One of the conditions of Barajas-Nunez's probation was to not break any laws.Barajas-Nunez remains in custody, without bail, at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga. A probation revocation hearing is scheduled for Jan. 23.In his petition for probation revocation, filed Nov. 24 in San Bernardino Superior Court, Poston argues that Barajas-Nunez broke the law and violated the terms of her probation by trespassing and not having in her possession a copy of her terms of probation.Barajas-Nunez is facing up to 20 years in prison, Poston said.joe.nelson@inlandnewspapers.com, (909) 386-3874To see more of the San Bernardino County Sun, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.sbsun.com/.

"CPP" AKA "Splinter Group"

The Splinter Group

This group is an offshoot of the 1980’s Splinter Group, led by Russell Murphy and assisted by Frances Miranda and Ihrene Scearse (later on the enrollment committee and committed to removing tribal members). Non-enrolled members of Pechanga, they started attending meetings and disrupted the regular goings on of the business. They announced that they were separating from the band and forming their own Tribe. They petitioned the BIA to recognize them, but the BIA refused.With few exceptions, no member of the splinter group applied for membership because they knew they could not meet the constitutional requirements established by the Pechanga Band.The actions of the splinter group raise legitimate questions: Are they really Pechanga? Are they able to document their lineal descent from an Original Pechanga Temecula Person as the Pechanga Bands Constitution and Bylaws require? Did they figure that disruption of tribal matters was the way to go?

At Pechanga, those involved in the disenrollment of tribal members include:Ihrene Scearce, Frances Miranda, Ruth Masiel, Bobbi LeMere, Jennie Miranda, Andy Masiel, Russell "Butch" Murphy, Raymond Basquez, Vincent Ibanez, Gary DuBois, Yolie McCarter and Mark Macarro. They are responsible for the dead of those who have been disenrolled from Pechanga.

Chronology of Events


1. In December 2001, Yolanda McCarter (niece of Irene Scearce and Ruth Masiel)
OP: and she is the one on the Pechanga infomercial saying she could die happy if she didn't have the casino money.) submitted a letter to Enrollment Committee demanding the Committee research several families including ours. The request stated that "this (be) straightened up before the next election in July." (So that there would be less votes, a clear sign that they wanted to disenfranchise "several families")

2. In June 2002, Enrollment Committee Chairperson Mary Magee is removed from the Committee for divulging confidential information. (She was caught talking about other families. Her sister is Gloria Wright, who is CPP) A petition is justified to amend the Disenrollment Procedures. A vote to approve or deny the petition is set for July 2002. (Petition is not brought forth until February 2003.) The newly built Pechanga Resort and Casino is opened. This is a permanent structure which replaced the original Casino structures which were in modular and sprung structure. In October 2002, 2 new members are elected to Enrollment Committee to bring membership up to required 10 members. (A member retired from Committee in September 2002). Olivia Walls is elected Committee Chair, and we request an audit of Enrollment Committee activities for the previous years and advice from our legal counsel at California Indian Legal Services on how to address wrong-doings by Committee and Committee members. Our legal counsel is told by John Macarro not to take any action to assist the Committee or answer our questions regarding the wrong-doings. (Wrong doings include enrollment of adult family members of 'certain' enrollment committee members.)

3. November 12, 2002, members of the Enrollment Committee, acting without a quorum and outside the Committee's procedures, serve several other Committee members with disenrollment summonses. The Committee members who took the action were- Irene Scearce, Ruth Masiel, Frances Miranda, Margaret Duncan, and Bobbi Lamere. Those served include John Gomez, Theresa Spears, Olivia Walls, and Sandra Garbani. (Lamere later gets her family members enrolled in the tribe, during the "moratorium"

4. On December 10, 2002, Concerned Pechanga People (These were part of the splinter group, many who were not on the original 1979 membership roll, as the Hunters were) submit documents to the Enrollment Committee questioning the lineal descent of several families including the Manuela Miranda descendents, Paulina Hunter descendents, and Garbani descendents. This action was taken a month after the above action. The Concerned Pechanga people are immediate family and friends of Committee members who initiated the November 12, 2002 action. (See list of Pechanga Enrollment Committee members, Splinter Group and Concerned Pechanga people).

Amend or repeal public law 280?

While some tribes are calling for an amendment or repeal of P.L. 280, what are the protections for members who have had their rights violated by corrupt factions of a tribal government? What are the protections for Indians who have allotted land on Reserves from retaliation from corrupt tribal governments?

P.L. 280 is a maze of complexity that pits state jurisdiction against tribal sovereignty, criminal laws against regulatory issues, and has caused discontent, confusion, and, in some cases, tragedy in Indian country and among some state and local law enforcement and criminal justice officials. When P.L. 280 was passed in 1953, it was an expression of the federal government’s intention to terminate its relationship with Indian tribes and force their members into mainstream society by subjecting them to state law. The law gave criminal justice jurisdiction to six states – without tribal consent. The empowered states got to enforce their statewide criminal laws against Indians and non-Indians who committed offences in Indian country on reservations. Between 1953 and 1968 when the Indian Civil Rights Act passed, states could opt in to P.L. 280 without tribes’ consent. After 1968, states needed a positive vote from tribes in order to adopt P.L. 280. But to this day, states can opt out – or retrocede – from P.L. 280, handing criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands back to the federal government, while tribes have no such option.Over the years, P.L. 280 has generated huge conflicts on borderline issues between criminal laws and regulatory laws conflicts, Goldberg said. For example, are speeding laws driving regulations or criminal prohibitions against driving too fast? The answer would determine whether a tribe or state has jurisdiction over such a traffic violation.

Carol what happens to corrupt tribal governments when they trample on their members Civil Rights, who is leaning on tribes to follow their constitutions and bylaws?