Tuesday, October 20, 2015

1984 and 1989

It seems some people are either confused or trying to create confusion.

In 1984 the General Council voted to correct Margarita Brittain's blood degree.

In 1989 the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs made  final determination that Margarita Brittain is fullblood.

On June 1st, 2011 Pala's Executive Committee voted to disenroll 8 Margarita Brittain descendants.

In February of 2012 Pala's Executive Committee voted to disnenroll 162 more Margarita Brittian descendants.

1984 Pala General Council Votes To Correct Margarita Brittain's Blood Degree To Fullblood

September 11, 1989 Department of the Interior Lettter to Pala Chairperson Patricia Nelson On Margarita Brit...


Anonymous said...

The truth plain and simple. Those meetings must have been a lot calmer. It is too bad that some of the people at Pala have to act like savages at the meetings, shows how far they have come with all the money that was going to help them achieve more and live better.

Anonymous said...

It looks like Mel Lavato started all this problem,he said Margarita, Brittian had the same mother ,and different Fathers,that was wrong ,why don't Mel fix this,dont he go to Church.We will see if he is a real Christian.

Anonymous said...

Mel won't say anything, he is scared of Robert, remember someone said that it was Mel who saw Robert and Andrew shove the flashlight down that guys throat at the campgrounds and Robert and Andrew were going to burn his house down while he was in it.

Anonymous said...

You can't believe anything " Yaqui Mel " says,His opinion totally contradicts the testimony of Carolina Nolasquez who was living at the time of MB.
Go back to watching the Taqwish vs.Sasquatch playing beach volleyball "Yaqui Mel" you nutjob.

Anonymous said...

The argument concerning membership seems to be revolving around how Ordinance 1 is being interpreted. According to the above letter, the BIA thinks they have the power to unilaterally change an EC decision concerning membership appeals, without any tribal input, which contradicts not only federal law, but tribal law. According to Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, a tribe has inherent sovereign right to determine it's own membership, because the tribe needs to be dependent on its decisions on how they want their future, more importantly thst case clearly defines how the Indian Civil Rights Act is applied in Indian Country, since the impetus of the original case was concerned about Civil Rights violations based on gender discrimination concerning tribal enrollment. Moreover, the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), federal law that forced tribes into adopting Constitutions created by the government without authority to change or amend governing documents based on the Secretary of the Interior ' approvsl, where never accepted in Southern California, nor did the Pala tribe ever agree to IRA, instead most tribes in Southern California created there own governing documents based on there own ideas based within tribsl-centric principles and ideals. Additionally, tribal law codified in the tribes non-IRA constitution, dictates how tribal membership is to be determined, including appeals, and as I understand, the tribe never gave the ASIA the authority to unilaterally change an EC decision, not only does it violate federal law, contradicts Supreme Court discourse concerning how federal law applies within Indian Country, it violates the sovereign right of a tribes tribal law. That being ssid, I don't see how a letter written by the government proves that they can change anything. It's up to the tribe to determine it's own future.

Anonymous said...

@November 7, 2015 at 11:44 PM

The PBMI General Council voted to correct Margarita Brittain's blood degree in 1984. The EC is not a tribe. PBMI is also not a federally recognized tribe. PBMI consists of multiple tribes including Cupeno, Luiseno, Cahuilla, Yaqui, and Digueno. The U.S. Government does not recognize Mexican Yaqui.

The EC of mainly Cahuilla descent voted to disenroll Cupenos. That is a violation of Santa Clara vs Martinez where the tribe determines its own membership. The EC is not the tribe nor is PBMI a tribe. Cahuilla voting to disenroll Cupeno is allowing one tribe to determine membership of another which is a clear violation.

Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez was more to do with the patrilineal determination of membership which was historic for that tribe. The BIA has chosen to incorrectly interpret and apply Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez to tribes across the country giving Chairmen and Executive Committees dictatorial power over their membership.

Also, you would need to be familiar with the Articles of Association which governed PBMI until 2000. The original ordinance No. 1 gave final authority of the allotment rolls to the secretary of the interior. This is because the BIA has a fiduciary trust obligation to the individual allottees to make sure they are getting benefits derived from the land they are entitled to.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 11:44 sounds like one those brilliant attorneys Robert Smith hired without tribal approval. You talk about the sovereign right of a tribe then you hand all the power to the Executive Committee of the Tribe. The Executive Committee is not sovereign the tribe is and the tribe voted to correct the blood of Margarita Britten. So you come on here and boast your knowledge of sovereignty and take the sovereign right of THE tribe and hand it over to a dictatorial body known as the Executive Committee. BS. How stupid is that. Answer: really, really, really, really STUPID.