Marc Benjamin of the Fresno Bee wrote an interesting piece regarding a new lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California against Picayune Rancheria.
Link: www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/07/2902338/chukchansi-family-files-suit-against.html
This lawsuit is grounded in the 1979 Tillie Hardwick litigation (my post here) that effectively un-terminated several California rancherias from Congress’ California Rancheria Act of 1958. Any member of a terminated tribe can regain federal recognition if they can show that they (or their ancestors) was a member of the original Tillie Hardwick class that filed suit against the United States back in the 70′s/80′s; and, demonstrating that at the time of the Hardwick settlement, at least one class member from the Rancheria owned real property within the original Rancheria boundaries.
That is what the plaintiffs are doing in this case, claiming that their ancestor, Maryan Ramirez, was a Chukchansi Indian who was an original class member, was the only person entitled to establish the tribal government of Chukchansi. However, when Ramirez died, her family declined to negotiate with the BIA over how to re-establish the tribal government. Then, another family stepped in and negotiated with the BIA — whose ancestor was not an original Tillie Hardwick class member — and established the rancheria we all know today. Now, Ramirez’s descendants have filed suit to assert their rightful claim to the government.
I have no clue why they waited so long, but this will prove to be interesting.
The motion to enforce the judgment was filed on June 7, 2012 along with several, voluminous exhibits that I haven’t had time to sort through yet.
Request for Judicial Notice
RJN Exhibits 1
RJN Exhibits 2
Bragdon Decl
Bragdon Decl Exhibit 1
Cathy Cory
July 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm
After reading the new (July 18, 2012) issue of Indian Country Today’s article, “From Carcieri to Worse”, I’m wondering if the Ramirez family–or someone else, for that matter, may challenge the land into trust status of the land on which Chukchansi Gold Casino is located.
As I read the article, it seems to imply that the status of land may be challenged on any land into trust decisions for a six year period following said land’s approval, given the tribe involved was a non-IRA tribe. Picayune IS a non-IRA tribe, and the land that the casino is built on was not taken into trust until late 2007–it was fee land until that time. Furthermore, there are no “treaty rights” assurances that would be perceived to be violated, as the treaties for tribes in California were never recognized. The only portion of the property that was in trust prior to that day was a portion of the parking lot. The original approval regarding the validity of ANY of the Picayune land as “Indian Land” was very controversial. (as covered in another area of this blog)
I tried to find the ICT July 8, 2012 edition on-line, but couldn’t find it. The article in the hard copy of ICT I received in the mail is entitled “From Carcieri to Worse”, article prefaced “The Supreme Court ruling on the Gun Lake case opens the floodgates to fivolous challenges of Indian trust acquisitions…”, pages 22-25.
Given, this is a complicated issue, and I may be misunderstanding… :)
Erick
July 13, 2012 at 8:25 am
I think Carcieri only prevents someone from challenging the Secretary of Interior’s land-into-trust process for tribes that are currently wanting to expand. I think.
And, the tribes that could be challenged under Carcieri have to be those who weren’t federally recognized in 1934, at the time of the Indian Reorganization Act. I’m not sure if that applies to the Chukchansi.
HarveyJake
November 9, 2012 at 5:14 am
How does a tribe that was terminated by the federal government, but never had a treaty or other relationship with the federal government(i.e. Eastern Tribes), go about reversing termination through the court system?
Erick
November 10, 2012 at 8:42 am
In California, you might try Tillie Hardwick. Everywhere else, I don’t know.
Lineal descendant
December 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Hi I’m a lineal descendant of the Picayune Rancheria. I like your talk and want you to know the news. Our family was denied by judge Jermy Fogel, because he’s a big part of this conspiracy against our family, along with that dude David Rapport for California Indian legal service, and Paul Locke U.S Attorney and the Northern district courts. The Government made a big mistake by only recognizing one distributee in Picayune, and North fork Rancherias. Then remodifying it in the 1987 stipulation for the party of plantiffs and keeping this from the Ramirez family. My grandma Maryan was the only distributee here on the Picayune Rancheria to recieve the 1983 stipulation. Then conveyed our land back into trust before that two year time period. Without that Picayune would be nothing.Ramirez’s have a strong case but will it be heard through the conspiracy of this government? It could take years. Do you think if the Ramirez’s and the Wyatt’s join together as equal distributees could we take control of what is ours?
Cathy Cory
December 21, 2012 at 6:08 pm
In response to “lineal descendant”…
As a lineal descendant of Hawa, Chukchansi, I look upon what has been occurring in the past decade at Picayune with disgust and shame. Dismemberments, banishments, disenrollments, illegal elections, corruption–it goes on and on.
I am curious to know your definition in your post of this phrase:
“Do you think if the Ramirez’s and the Wyatt’s join together as equal distributees could we take control of what is ours?”
First of all, what exactly do you mean by “what is ours?” At present, there are close to 1500 Chukchansi people who have now had stolen their very birthright as Indian people due to the constant infighting at Picayune…THAT–our very birthright–is my definition of “what is ours” and it is gone.
Currently, the Ramirez family is very much enrolled at Picayune, which was a point brought forth by Judge Jeremy Fogel during the recent hearing over which he presided. Judge Fogel also brought forth the fact that the Ramirez family waited almost three decades before questioning the validity of the way in which the Tillie Hardwick decision was being implemented. Therefore, I suspect the definition of “what is ours” in your terms is the same as that of the current Wyatt-led tribal council at Picayune, and for EVERY tribal council seated in the last decade–Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino.
Herein lies the problem…it seems that ALL of those struggling for “control” at Picayune have no regard for who we are as Chukchansi people, or the well being of our elders and future generations. Truthfully, they merely care about themselves and the monies generated by Chukchansi Gold going directly to them. The traditions, culture, and language of our people, and the continuance of our people as a tribe mean nothing. When THAT changes, and when the people are brought home to Picayune where they belong, then we shall ALL have what is ours and what is truly important–our very birthright as Chukchansi. Until then, all that happens at Picayune brings only shame and disgrace to our people, and all will continue to suffer until we exist no more.
Lineal descendant
December 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm
For you to understand what is ours, I have to tell you from the begining. The whites flooded California in the 1800s and when they passed north of the San Juaquin towards the foothills, they learned from the spanish that this hill is Mt. Diablo. They feared my great, great grandpa, Bill Wyatt-Coyote-Sha-man. He battled to the death just like his dad did to protect his indian band and to keep his indian territory.
In 1912 the Picayune Rancheria was established on the Wyatts territory. During that time the government was removing indian children and shipping them to schools. Plan was to erase indian man and his ways. My great grandma and grandpa, Nancy and Mike Wyatt tucked away their children deep in their territory. Soldiers were reminded why this hill was called Mt. Diablo, and the Wyatts remained.
In 1958 the government terminates the Picayune Rancheria, and hit the wyatts with taxes, if they were to keep the land. The government knew indians had no money and would eventually conquer indian land. Nancy passed away in 1965 and her daughter continued to pay taxes on her land for 18 years.
In 1983 my grandma Maryan Ramirez was the only distributee to still own intrest in real property at the time of the Tillihardwick judgement. She submitted her declaration and qualified to be federally recognized as one of the seventeen Rancherias. Giving her the rights to self-government and rights for self recognition and for full restoration of the original Picayune Rancheria.
First she put her land back into trust, then she submitts a constitution to recognize her band, but the government wanted to fit 1,500 landless Chukchansis through her recognition. So they pushed her constitution to the side and waited for her to die, so they can manipulate a new judgement for the party of plaintiffs. The government broke the trust responsbility with Maryan along with her federal rights, and birth rights of the Picayune Rancheria. She gift deeded her land to her children. The government failed to give technical assistance to the distributees of the land. This was part of the governments conspiracy. We’re still here! Still breathing! founders of the Picayune Rancheria, where our ancestors lived before 1912. Imagine that! Where’s this familys Sovereignty the federal law talks about?