In 1903 the Agua Caleinte Cupeno were removed from their ancestral tribal home, the Village of Kupa also known as Warner's Hot Springs. The Cupeno were forced onto the Pala Indian Reservation. This is known as the Cupeno Trail of Tears.
On June 1st, 2011 and February 1st, 2012 162 Warner Ranch Evictee Agua Caliente Cupeno were removed from the PBMI Association by the Pala Enrollment Committee. This is our Second Trail of Tears.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
April 21, 1903 Report of Conference at Agua Caliente
Here is the sad story of the Commission telling the Agua Caliente Tribe it has to leave Kupa. Note the Captain's wise words regarding the people and the way they had been treated. I am not sure who the Captain was. The previous Captain was Cecelio Blacktooth, but this Captain is not named. Anyone know who the Kupa Captain was at this Conference?
They didn't even discuss the 1989 decision?? Not sure why, it seems to me that should have been brought up. Maybe they thought it was not gonna work since the BIA made a recommendation to The EC that the margarita Britten is full blood and according to our governing documents the BIA has no authority over membership so it didn't matter it if they enacted the 89 decision because the BIA did follow their own ruling but the EC doesn't have to?? I'm not exactly sure how powerful the final decision is?? Obviously not that powerful if Robert can just throw it to the side and go against what it says. Which also means the BIA/ASIA has no real power he only make RECOMMENDATIONS that a tribe can CHOSE to follow. Then what is the purpose of the BIA other than to keep records?
You are probably talking about the Aguayo v. Jewell hearing. The BIA upholds the 1989 Final Decision, or so they say. Part of the claims of the Plaintiffs is that the decision is not being properly upheld. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned by the Plaintiff's attorney.
If the BIA was properly upholding the 1989 Final Decision it could issue a memorandum order as suggested by the Plaintiff's Attorney in the Appeal. That order would be to instruct the PBMI to acknowledge the eligible descendants of Margarita Britten as members.
The BIA currently views such an order as an intervention and an infringement on the PBMI's sovereign rights. The BIA did not view it in those terms in 1989, which was after the Santa Clara Pueblos v. Martinez decision of 1978.
It is definitely FUBAR, but that's government for you.
3 comments:
Here is the sad story of the Commission telling the Agua Caliente Tribe it has to leave Kupa. Note the Captain's wise words regarding the people and the way they had been treated. I am not sure who the Captain was. The previous Captain was Cecelio Blacktooth, but this Captain is not named. Anyone know who the Kupa Captain was at this Conference?
They didn't even discuss the 1989 decision?? Not sure why, it seems to me that should have been brought up. Maybe they thought it was not gonna work since the BIA made a recommendation to The EC that the margarita Britten is full blood and according to our governing documents the BIA has no authority over membership so it didn't matter it if they enacted the 89 decision because the BIA did follow their own ruling but the EC doesn't have to?? I'm not exactly sure how powerful the final decision is?? Obviously not that powerful if Robert can just throw it to the side and go against what it says. Which also means the BIA/ASIA has no real power he only make RECOMMENDATIONS that a tribe can CHOSE to follow. Then what is the purpose of the BIA other than to keep records?
You are probably talking about the Aguayo v. Jewell hearing. The BIA upholds the 1989 Final Decision, or so they say. Part of the claims of the Plaintiffs is that the decision is not being properly upheld. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned by the Plaintiff's attorney.
If the BIA was properly upholding the 1989 Final Decision it could issue a memorandum order as suggested by the Plaintiff's Attorney in the Appeal. That order would be to instruct the PBMI to acknowledge the eligible descendants of Margarita Britten as members.
The BIA currently views such an order as an intervention and an infringement on the PBMI's sovereign rights. The BIA did not view it in those terms in 1989, which was after the Santa Clara Pueblos v. Martinez decision of 1978.
It is definitely FUBAR, but that's government for you.
Post a Comment