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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pechanga
The Drip "Source of Life"
10 comments:
In the Record of Decision disenrolling the Hunter family of Pechanga, on the last page, page 28, the decision says the following:
"THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE ATTESTS THAT THE FOREGOING WAS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM OF THE PECHANGA ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE ON MARCH 16, 2006."
And below this statement are the signatures of six Enrollment Committee Members.
Can the Masiels/Basquez or the desecendants of Candarlaria Flores show that they were cleared from disenrollment by a legal quorum of the Enrollment Committee?
I don't see how they could show this because they were cleared from disenrollment by only three members of the committee and a legal quorum is supposed to be at least 51 percent or a minimum of six members of the ten member committee.
So the Hunters case was required to be decided by a quorum of the committee and those CPP families cases were not?
The tribal council in allowing those CPP families to be illegally cleared stated that the Enrollment Committee had operated without a full committee in the past and that enrollment decisions could be made with as few as three members.
I would ask the council what enrollment decisions before, if any, had ever been made with as few as three committee members?
I will again repeat what I posted on this subject on another thread here or on OP's blog.
While we were still tribal members a female member of the Hunters went to the Enrollment Committee with a simple request to have her name changed from her maiden name to her married name.
On that particular day the committee told her she would have to come back on another day because the Enrollment Committee could not meet without a legal quorum.
So let me get this straight, the Enrollment Committee can't do something as simple as a name change without a legal quorum but they can make major decisions regarding tribal members' citizenship status in the Band without a legal quorum?
So if the Basquez/Masiels and Francis Miranda's family were illegally cleared from disenrollment by less than a legal quorum of the committee, then shouldn't their votes to disenroll the Hunters should be null and void?
Very valid points. I do believe this is why the CPP pushed for the disenrollment of the Manuela Miranda and Paulina Hunter desendants. Corruption at it's finest.
The council would probably cite the clause in the Band's constitution that says "the tribal council shall at all times act in the best interests of the Band."
My question is, how is it in the best interest of the Band to not follow long standing rules and procedures in something as important as the enrollment status of tribal members?
People may wonder why only three members were on the Enrollment Committee when important disenrollment decisions were made.
But at one point there were seven members of the Enrollment Committee, who's families were under investigation for disenrollment, who were suspended from the committee pending the ruling on of their cases.
Well the CPP families cases were taken out of order that they were filed, the M. Mirandas and the Hunters had been filed against for disenrollment first by those CPP families, and the committee members from the CPP families were then cleared by only three members of the Enrollment Committee and they were reinstated to the committee and they were reportedly the deciding votes in voting the M. Mirandas and the Hunters out of the tribe.
But adding on to the unfairness of the proceedings was that those CPP family members who were reinstated to the committee, who had their membership credentials challenged by both people from the Hunter family and from the M. Miranda family, were then allowed to vote on the disenrollment cases of the M. Miranda and Hunter families.
Once again a clear violation of Article V of the Pechanga tribe's constitution against malice or prejudice against individual tribal members.
Any reasonable people can see that the decision to disenroll the M. Mirandas and the Hunters was biased.
The fair thing would have been for a full interim committee, not from any of the interested parites, to be elected to the Enrollment Committee to rule on all the pending disenrollment cases and in the order taken.
So was the "kangaroo court" proceedings that railroaded the Hunters and M Mirandas out of the tribe in the best interests of the Band or was it in the best interests of the rougue faction who took over the tribe?
Forward all of this information to the NEW B.I.A AND F.B.I IN WASH.DC
NOW IS THE TIME
everyone log on and blog about this
on Pres.Obama's
citizensbriefingbook.change.gov
" Did the enrollment Committee violated Article V of the Band's constitution against malice or prejudice against individual tribal members when they disenrolled us."
When the tribal council reviewed our case to see if there was any malice or prejudice shown against individual tribal members by the enrollment committee, they came to the conclusion that there was malice and prejudice shown against us . After rereading the finding submitted to us from the tribal council, I see they they do admit that malice and prejudice was shown against us. They just say that there was "not enough" to overturn the enrollment committee's decision.
So the question is this.... just how much is enough? I guess having an enrollment committee member tell us that we were going to be disenrolled no matter what we turned in is not "enough".
The violations are clear.
We never had the opportunity to address these findings. The most blatant violation is from the tribal council memo, who said “the enrollment committee has the final authority in all enrollment issues.”
This memo is in direct contradiction of the constitution and bylaws of our tribe.
According to tribal law an precedent, the General membership has the final authority in all matters of the band, including tribal membership.
I wonder if Butch Murphy voted for the 2006 tribal council ruling that said that the General Membership couldn't overrule the Enrollment Committee's decisions to enroll or disenroll?
Because if he did, then he voted to invalidate his own tribal membership as the General Membership had voted in 1986 to take in him and his family as tribal members after the Enrollment Committee had turned down their enrollment applications.
The April 20, 1986 minutes say the General Membership vote was for the "heirs of Rose Murphy, enrollment appeal."
So clearly Butch and his family are adopted members because it says heirs, not lineal descendants.
So which is it Butch, can the General Membership overrule the Enrollment Committee on enrollment or disenrollment decisions or can't they?
Because if the General Membership cannot overrule the Enrollment committee, then you are in the tribe illegally.
Conversely if the General Membership can overrule Enrollment Committee, which they did in taking you into the tribe, then the General Membership could also legally stop the Hunters from being dienrolled with the 2005 vote to outlaw disenrollment as a part of tribal law.
Add on to my last post: So Butch Murphy is living proof that the General Membership of the Pechanga tribe is the final authority in matters of tribal enrollment and not the Enrollment Committee.
The bogus ruling of March 2006 by the tribal council was just an excuse to allow the disenrollment of the Hunter family after the tribe had voted in July 2005 to end all disenrollments.
So there is no tribal legal precedent that says the General Membership can't overrule the decisions of the Enrollment Committee, right Butch?
True That!
After reading these posts again there is one more point to make.
Another reason given by the tribal council in not allowing the Hunters to be included in the petition to end disenrollent in 2005 was that it didn't change the membership requirments and the enrollment committee had concluded, falsely I believe, that the Hunters didn't meet the requirments.
Well if that is the case, did Butch Murphy and his family meet the requirment of being adopted in the Indian way prior to 1928, a constitutional requirment?
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the vote to take them into the tribe was in 1986.
So is their tribal membership in violation of the Band's constitution?
Or was Rose Murphy herself adopted by the tribe prior to 1928?
Then her heirs could be voted in.
I have done some research on the Murphy family line but I need to do more because if Rose Murphy herself was Pechanga blood, then her heirs, and Butch Murphy is called an heir in the minutes of the 1986 meeting that approved his tribal membership, were adopted after 1928.
Note that the 1986 special membership meeting minutes do not say the lineal descendants of Rose Murphy but as stated above, the mintues say the heirs of Rose Murphy enrollment appeal, vote needed and the blood of the tribe are called lineal descendants, not heirs.
Post a Comment