Post by blackcrowheart on Jun 1, 2006 15:11:26 GMT -5
High court passes on Pechanga case
From: MJLaBurt @ aol.com (take out spaces)
The hopes of former Pechanga members that their lawsuit accusing the tribe of violating its constitution would stay alive was shattered Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case.
At issue was whether the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians near Temecula has the right to remove some 130-plus members from its tribal rolls. The tribe's enrollment committee did so in 2004.
The Supreme Court was not being asked to decide the enrollment question, just whether California courts have the jurisdiction to decide it. As a result of the court not hearing the case, the lawsuit is essentially terminated. The disenrolled members have another lawsuit pending which seeks financial losses to the tune of more than $50 million.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not provide a reason for not taking the case, said Jon Velie, one of the attorneys representing the disenrolled members. While this lawsuit has been stopped in its tracks, that doesn't mean the fight is over, he said.
"There are other causes of action we can bring, and we will to find justice for these folks," Velie said Monday, declining to state what those other causes may be.
John Gomez, a spokesman for the disenrolled members, said the Supreme Court's rejection implies it condones the members being kicked out of the tribe.
"The Supreme Court's failure to intervene kind of endorses the actions they took in committing what we believe is genocide against our people, and it's an invitation for others to do the same," Gomez said.
He said he believes the tribe is engaging in ethnic cleansing through the disenrollments.
Tribal chairman Mark Macarro said via e-mail that the court's rejection of the case is a victory for Pechanga and Indian Country.
"In its denial, the Supreme Court let stand lower court rulings that when a tribe faithfully executes its own laws and processes in enrollment affairs, it does so as a sovereign government with sole jurisdiction over the subject matter of citizenship," he wrote.
The disenrolled members' lawsuit was a referendum on Public Law 280, a statute that gives some state courts, including those in California, the authority to interpret tribal law in civil and criminal matters. Velie remained adamant throughout the legal process that this statute should enable the case to be heard in state court.
Gomez said he was disappointed that the reliance on this statute didn't carry more weight with the justices.
"I think we're most disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to comprehend the issues around our case that distinguished it from other cases," he said.
The original lawsuit was filed in January 2004 by 11 disenrolled members of the Pechanga tribe on behalf of more than 130 family members. The suit tried to stop the disenrollments from occurring.
A Riverside County Superior Court sided with the disenrolled members, but the 4th District Court of Appeal decided the lower court did not have jurisdiction. The disenrolled members then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which in November refused to hear the case.
When the disenrollments occurred despite the first lawsuit, a second lawsuit was filed accusing 30-plus tribal members of influencing the disenrollments. That lawsuit sought damages for the financial losses of the disenrolled members, which, as of March, stood at more than $50 million.
<http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/05/24/news/californian/51206221443.txt>
Material appearing here is distributed without profit or monitory gain to those
who have expressed an interest in receiving the material for research and
educational purposes. This is in accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. section 107.
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
From: MJLaBurt @ aol.com (take out spaces)
The hopes of former Pechanga members that their lawsuit accusing the tribe of violating its constitution would stay alive was shattered Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case.
At issue was whether the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians near Temecula has the right to remove some 130-plus members from its tribal rolls. The tribe's enrollment committee did so in 2004.
The Supreme Court was not being asked to decide the enrollment question, just whether California courts have the jurisdiction to decide it. As a result of the court not hearing the case, the lawsuit is essentially terminated. The disenrolled members have another lawsuit pending which seeks financial losses to the tune of more than $50 million.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not provide a reason for not taking the case, said Jon Velie, one of the attorneys representing the disenrolled members. While this lawsuit has been stopped in its tracks, that doesn't mean the fight is over, he said.
"There are other causes of action we can bring, and we will to find justice for these folks," Velie said Monday, declining to state what those other causes may be.
John Gomez, a spokesman for the disenrolled members, said the Supreme Court's rejection implies it condones the members being kicked out of the tribe.
"The Supreme Court's failure to intervene kind of endorses the actions they took in committing what we believe is genocide against our people, and it's an invitation for others to do the same," Gomez said.
He said he believes the tribe is engaging in ethnic cleansing through the disenrollments.
Tribal chairman Mark Macarro said via e-mail that the court's rejection of the case is a victory for Pechanga and Indian Country.
"In its denial, the Supreme Court let stand lower court rulings that when a tribe faithfully executes its own laws and processes in enrollment affairs, it does so as a sovereign government with sole jurisdiction over the subject matter of citizenship," he wrote.
The disenrolled members' lawsuit was a referendum on Public Law 280, a statute that gives some state courts, including those in California, the authority to interpret tribal law in civil and criminal matters. Velie remained adamant throughout the legal process that this statute should enable the case to be heard in state court.
Gomez said he was disappointed that the reliance on this statute didn't carry more weight with the justices.
"I think we're most disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to comprehend the issues around our case that distinguished it from other cases," he said.
The original lawsuit was filed in January 2004 by 11 disenrolled members of the Pechanga tribe on behalf of more than 130 family members. The suit tried to stop the disenrollments from occurring.
A Riverside County Superior Court sided with the disenrolled members, but the 4th District Court of Appeal decided the lower court did not have jurisdiction. The disenrolled members then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which in November refused to hear the case.
When the disenrollments occurred despite the first lawsuit, a second lawsuit was filed accusing 30-plus tribal members of influencing the disenrollments. That lawsuit sought damages for the financial losses of the disenrolled members, which, as of March, stood at more than $50 million.
<http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/05/24/news/californian/51206221443.txt>
Material appearing here is distributed without profit or monitory gain to those
who have expressed an interest in receiving the material for research and
educational purposes. This is in accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. section 107.
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html