Thread: CA. Indian families face disparate outcomes in disputes

CA. Indian families face disparate outcomes in disputes

Enrollment feuds continue at two local tribes

By EDWARD SIFUENTES - esifuentes@nctimes.com
January 17, 2010 8:20 pm

Members of a local American Indian family are one step closer to regaining part of their identity as San Pasqual Indians. Another family is one step closer to losing its status ---- and huge monthly checks ---- as members of the Pechanga tribe.

The Alto family was told late last year by the U.S. Department of the Interior that the federal government continues to recognize them as members of the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, a tribe in Valley Center.

However, a federal court judge told the Madariaga family in late December that it could not interfere with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians' decision to remove them as members of the Temecula tribe.

The two families are part of a growing problem among American Indian tribes. Thousands of tribal members have been expelled from American Indian communities throughout the country in recent years.

Indian-rights advocates say that many of the ousters are driven by greed.

Membership has long been a topic of heated debate in tribal communities, but those questions have become even more contentious in recent years with the advent of casino wealth.

Tribal casinos have become a nearly $8 billion-a-year industry in California since gambling was legalized on Indian lands 10 years ago.

Before gambling was legalized, membership in most tribes meant little more than kinship and identity within a tribe. Now membership can include large monthly payments, free health care, education and housing.

That means that people who are rejected by casino-rich tribes stand to lose not only their identity as members of American Indian tribes, but a long list of benefits, including thousands of dollars in monthly casino earnings.

Tribal leaders, including those at Pechanga and San Pasqual, have said the enrollment disputes are internal tribal matters and have nothing to do with money.

At issue in both cases is whether the federal government or federal courts can intervene in tribal matters. Tribal governments are sovereign nations and control most civil matters on their reservations, including who belongs and who does not.

Pechanga

In Pechanga's constitution, enrollment is solely an internal matter. San Pasqual's constitution, however, allows the federal government to intervene in enrollment disputes.

In the Temecula case, Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro said he was pleased with the court's decision not to intervene in what it said was a tribal matter.

"Although this has been a very difficult and emotional matter, we are satisfied with the court's ruling," Macarro said in a written statement. "We view this decision as yet another affirmation that Pechanga upheld the rule of law."

The tribe owns the Pechanga Resort & Casino, one of the largest and most successful Indian casinos in the state, with 3,400 slot machines and a 517-room hotel.

Members of the Madariaga family filed a lawsuit against Macarro and other tribal leaders in 2007 after about 140 people, including 50 children, were expelled from the tribe.

The case disputed whether their ancestor, Paulina Hunter, was of Pechanga descent. The tribe's enrollment committee said in 2007 that "Hunter was not an original Pechanga Temecula person."

Family members say that the committee ignored the findings of an anthropologist hired by the tribe itself who said the family was indeed part of the Pechanga reservation.

Losing their status as tribal members meant that their children were ousted from the tribal school, the monthly casino revenue checks stopped and the family's movements on the reservation restricted.

Each adult member of the family received about $250,000 a year in casino revenue, often referred to as per capita, according to court documents.

In a 2-1 decision issued Dec. 22, the 9th District Court of Appeals declined to hear the case, saying that it did not have jurisdiction over tribal enrollment matters.

Patrick Romero Guillroy, an attorney for the family, said the family is considering appealing the decision, which he said was a blow to American Indian and civil rights. People who are born members of a tribe should not lose their status, just like citizens of a country.

"If that is allowed, what rights do Indians have?" he asked.

San Pasqual

Members of the Alto family in San Pasqual got some welcome news late last year. In their case, the Bureau of Indian Affairs reaffirmed an earlier decision that said family members are legitimate members of the tribe.

San Pasqual owns Valley View Casino in Valley Center, a mid-size casino with 2,000 slot machines and a 12-story, 161-suite hotel under construction.

In June 2008, the tribe's government stopped making the $3,500 monthly payments to 59 members of the Alto family, saying they didn't belong. The payments were diverted to an escrow account until the membership issue was resolved, according to tribal documents.

The family members also were barred from voting in a tribal government election and lost tribal government jobs and positions.

On Nov. 30, 2009, the bureau issued an interim decision that restored the family's benefits pending a final decision in the case, which could take up to six months, said Glenn Charos, an attorney for the family.

The dispute stems from a challenge filed by another tribal member, Ron Mast, in August 2007, saying that the family members are descendants of Marcus Alto Sr., who was adopted by a tribal family, but was not their biological son.

San Pasqual's chairman, Allen Lawson, repeatedly has declined to comment on matters related to the disenrollment of the Alto family. He did not return a call for comment for this article.

Mast said the tribe would continue to appeal the case.

"We have to," Mast said. "They are not Indians. We know that for a fact."

Call staff writer Edward Sifuentes at 760-740-3511.

http://nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/ ... 14198.html

All of these payments...and still gangs are flourishing.

The dispute stems from a challenge filed by another tribal member, Ron Mast, in August 2007, saying that the family members are descendants of Marcus Alto Sr., who was adopted by a tribal family, but was not their biological son.

Adoption has long been a breaking point in whether or not you are a true member of a tribe. Speaking from experience, one of the first questions asked in enroling into a tribe is "are you adopted, or were any members of your family adopted?" This came about when Canada's Gov't took Indian children out of their homes and put them into the homes of white people ( sorry, this isn't really a slam against white people; it's just a fact). Those kids were stripped of everything they knew, even their Status as a tribal member.

The other problem pointed out here are the Casino's. Yes they can bring immense wealth onto a Rez, but they also can bring corruption. Take Akwesasne ( St. Regis, NY), ONE man owns the Casino there. So the wealth does not actually benefit the entire tribe. But I believe Casino Rama in Orilla Ont. does share with the tribe.

Interesting. I'm sure the beneficiaries who are being kicked out of the tribe are very disappointed. But based on our arrangements with the Reservations, it's none of our business. That's the way the Indians wanted it, so that's the way it is.

Another example are the Cherokees who have kicked out all the Black Cherokees who aren't of Cherokee descent, even though they were forced to go with the Cherokees to the reservations by their slave owners, the Cherokees who owned about 15,000 African Slaves. Many died on the Trail of Tears along with their owners, but some made it and have been considered Cherokees since until 2006 when the Cherokee Nation expunged them from the reservation and denied any rights to any monies or assets in the Cherokee Nation, due to lack of actual Cherokee blood line.