Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Cupa News #7

Cupa News #7 by kupa7 on Scribd

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

These families you are talking about are enrolled members so they have a vote as much as the rest of us and several sit on the council so how exactly do you expect there to be change ? Nieto opened this can of worms when she made a motion to start disenrolling. I don’t know if she knew her own family history then because she should have just left the enrollment issue alone. Many of us have seen the census records and old documents that prove Remijo Lugo was originally Cahuilla and was paid to bring down the Cupeno from Warner Ranch and got an allotment in Pala by claiming to be one of the evictees. All Lugo/Lubo we’re only on Cahuilla census records up until 1903 then Remijo started showing up in Pala’s census. The disenrollments have had one effect that now people are really looking into family histories and finding out the truth. The Brittains have really been looked into and everything proves Margarita was FULLBLOOD Cupeno and her descendants should not have been discussed. They would win in any court of law against Roberts proof of “ I am sovereign I don’t need to show you”. Pala needs to revert back to 2010 enrollment and leave the enrollment issue alone. It’s become a big mess ever since the disenrollments started in 2011 and everyone has been looking into everyone’s family history and several families have actual evidence they shouldn’t be enrolled but that’s not what enrollment is about. Enrollment is about personal feelings and political advantage that’s why the Brittains were disenrolled.

Anonymous said...

Well now if these fake members seem to control the voting power in Pala why don't they help the disenrolled and vote to put them back on the Pala rolls.
Sooner or later they (the fake ones) are going to need as many votes as they can get to stay in Pala.
For the sake of everything honest and good vote to go back and correct the disenrollments and heal the hate and the family ties that
need to be restored before Pala can move on in a positive way.

Anonymous said...

It's just a matter of time before the shit his the fan and everyone responsible for the disenrollments will be dealt with.
I can say that if I were to become the Chairman in Pala, the first thing I would fix would be the Rolls of the PBMI and the disenrollments of the Britten Family which were done out of hate.
This is in no way a way to run your Tribe.
Scare tactics should never come into play when it concerns peoples lives.
Everyone knows how the disenrollments went down.
Even with all the proof the Britten family is still denied by the
EC which should raise RED FLAGS all over.
It proves that the EC is wrong and it also proves that the EC is not acting in the best interest of the Tribe/Band as a whole.
Only their agenda (the EC) counts and no input from the General Membership is considered in any decisions concerning the Tribe.
And now the EC wants to amend the Tribal Constitution at tonight's meeting.VOTE IT DOWN AND STAY FIRM.DO NOT GIVE THEM MORE POWER TO CONTROL THE TRIBE, EVEN WHEN SMITH SHOWS YOU HIS SAD PUPPY FACE TO GET YOUR APPROVAL.
THIS IS HIS SNEAKY WAY OF GETTING YOU TO GIVE THEM MORE AND MORE POWER
This date change is to protect the EC and the BIA from any wrong doing.All of the dates used in the court hearing against the EC, the BIA and the so called Constitution were wrong and they should be held
accountable for their misprints.
The Constitution was submitted by the EC to the BIA and it was approved by the BIA and now the EC wants to change the dates of submission to protect their asses.
VOTE IT DOWN AND LET THE BIA AND THE EC DEAL WITH IT. THEY SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE ERROR IN THE DATE FROM THE BEGENNING AND CORRECTED IT BACK THEN AFTER ALL THEY SUBMITTED IT AND THE BIA APPROVED IT.
FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRIBE VOTE IT DOWN OAT LEAST VOTE TO TABLE IT UNTIL THE GTENERAL MEMBERSHIP HAS TIME TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE YOU VOTE TO CHANGE ANYTHING CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PBMI.
DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

Here's my question. I have had to listen to Mel Lovato and Leroy Miranda swear up and down that their grandmother, Roscinda Nolosquez, told them that Margarita Britten was not full blood. How long have they known that Roscinda Nolasquez was half Yaqui?

The truth has come out and now we know why they have worked so hard to get the Brittain descendants out. They have been afraid that their bloodline would be exposed as a sham. Hey, Robert Smith wants them in PBMI because they support him. Any claim they are not influenced by him is a lie as fat RS.

Anonymous said...

I just came back from the so-called Tribal Meeting.
However when I got to the Admin Building all I found was a note on the entrance door stating that the meeting was canceled and sorry.
There were a lot of people beginning to show up and were surprised that it was canceled.
WTF is going on?

Anonymous said...

The EC was probably not ready to answer any questions concerning the Tribal Constitution and the Court decisions that were based on the dates submitted by the BIA for the approval of the said Constitution.
Maybe the disenrolled should refile their complaint and let the Courts see how they change things to suit their agenda.
It all fall back on Robert Smith and his partner in crime Amy the Hulk
at the regional office in Sacramento.
They both are guilty of lying about the Constitution and they both got caught up by their lies on this one.
They forget what lies they told and now want the General Membership to get them out of it,AGAIN.

Anonymous said...

The Attorney for the disenrolled should refile another complaint using this new info about the Pala Bands Constitution.
That would be Tracey Emblem in Escondido.
Every decision that the Courts made in this case was that the Constitution was legal and this proves that they lied because it wasn't legal.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

It's over. The Court will not hear new evidence. The final decision has been issued. If you want change it has to come from within PBMI.

Anonymous said...

Also, a case may be reopened if there is newly discovered evidence which would probably have altered the judgment. It would most likely have to be proved that the new evidence could not have been discovered sooner using due diligence.

There are many reasons to open a twenty year old cold case. The top reasons are: . New information or evidence is received (or uncovered). . There are new sciences to test old evidence. . There are numerous new data bases to search that didn't exist twenty years ago. . Personal relationships change over time that may induce a witness to speak up when they would not twenty years ago.

Anonymous said...

The Courts decision was based on lies from the EC and the BIA.
I believe that a good Attorney could have this case reopened with this new evidence that proves that the EC and the BIA Lied under oath.

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

The Court's decision was based on the expiration of the statute of limitations on appeal of the approval of the Pala Constitution and the right to self-determination of the PBMI protected by Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez. This right means the government should not interfere in internal tribal decisions. It is very unlikely that the Court would reopen the Agauyo case. That doesn't mean a different case with a different cause of action would be dismissed without review. However trying to challenge the disenrollments by arguing the Constitution is invalid is a moot cause of action and would be dismissed with prejudice.

Anonymous said...

@ R_R
I thought the same way until I talked to an Attorney on Friday.
He said that a refile should be filed because according to the invalid
Constitution the Pala Tribe and it's members are still governed by the Articles of Association.
And that in order to get a valid Constitution the Band would have to have a special meeting with only that item on the agenda which never took place on the original submission of the invalid Constitution.

Anonymous said...

How about a class action lawsuit to clarify the creation of the reservation and the rightful heirs to the original reservation?

Reinstatement_Restitution said...

The approval of the Constitution is moot because the time allowed to legally challenge it has expired. The evidence that the approval was not valid does not toll the time allowed to challenge unless it can be shown that there was an intentional to commit fraud. That is a tough one to prove and is a different cause of action than Agauyo. The Court still won't overturn the Pala Constitution because of the non-interference doctrine. If there was intent to commit fraud then it could be a criminal case. I have always thought that the PBMI members were defrauded by the EC and that the BIA colluded. Find the evidence and then sovereign immunity won't protect the EC.

Anonymous said...

The EC is only protected while on the Reservation so off the Reservation they are fair game to all the hunters.
Choose you target and fire away.