Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon V Ken Salazar
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon V Ken Salazar
1
David Laughing Horse Robinson,
2 Chairman
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon MV 1 0 2003
3 P.O. Box 1547
~ernville,CA 93238
4 (661) 378-1085
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, PRO SE
6
2:
2f
-0 72
(Rev. US,
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
SUMMARY
by the United States since before 1934 and has been omitted
from the Federal Register list of entities recognized and
citizens of California.
4. This request for emergency relief is necessary
1
County of Kern, State of California. The applicants for the
2
development are Tejon Ranch Company, Tejon Mountain Village
3
LLC and selected companies they control.
4
6
court to define our "Indian Country" as set forth under
14
duplicates the Diseno maps of 1776 and 1777 by Father
-0 72
(Rev.8/82:
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kem, CA
à 1
Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico the Kawaiisu
2
Tribe of Tejon are documented under several different
3
names: Cobajais, Cobaji, Covaji, Kah-wisl-sah, Kawaiisu,
4
7 (EXHIBIT # 4 ) .
8 7. The Diseno Maps (EX. 3) of 1776 and 1777 by
9
Father Francisco Garces and Father Pedro Font for the
10
Government of Spain use several of our Tribal designations
11
on their maps: Cobaji, Cobajaef, Quabajai, Nochi, Nochis
12
(EX. 3).
13
14
8. No acts of termination have ever been affirmed
22
issued allotments to Kawaiisu Tribal members who lived on
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82;
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
'. 1
court ruled that the allotment provisions of the Act of
2
June 17, 1892 are completely consistent with continued
. 3
reservation status. In other words, by issuing allotments
4
the Department of Interior and Congress are continuing to
5
6
recognize the existence of a tribe and it's reservation. In
14
accepted large campaign donations from the development
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82
Kawaiisu Tribe of
Â
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
. 1
11. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon (KTOT) seeks
2
emergency relief because the County of Kern, as Lead
3
Agency, approved a massive 26,417 acre private luxury
4
6
his complex development is designed to also have three
14
the only Branch of Government that has the power to
-0 72
(Rev.8/82)
? a
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
on ~ndianReservations or to tresspass.
Reservation.
40, 45, 49, 165; 2 White's New Recopilacion, pp. 50, 52,
242.). Mexico acquired the property by International Treaty
( 1848 .
Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty) The Spanish and ~exican
Kawaiisu Tribe
0
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
i n t h e EIR. Kern County P l a n n i n g o f f i c i a l s d e n i e d , a t t h e
2
t e l e v i s e d h e a r i n g , t h a t t h e r e w e r e any p l a n s f o r a Casino
3
on t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e r e w a s no r e a s o n f o r it t o be
4
i n t h e EIR.
5
6
17. I t i s c l e a r t h a t Defendants, Kern County,
14
t h e Tejon Mountain V i l l a g e LLC Development P r o j e c t from
15 b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t w h i l e t h e c l a i m s of t h i s case are b e i n g
16 r e s o l v e d . Other r e l i e f i s s t a t e d a t t h e end of t h i s
17 Complaint.
18
19
JURISDICTION AMD VENUE
20
21
T h i s c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t
22
<^A072
(Rev. 8/82)
? a
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
Court of Federal Claims for claims arising [after August
2
13, 19461 under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the
3
US, or Executive orders of the President, or Congress which
4
7 group.
8 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17 (1831)
9
27 Stanford Law Review 1213, 1223, Reid Payton Chambers
10
Judicial Enforcement for the Federal Trust Responsibility
11
to Indians
12
This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to
13
14
28 U.S.C. Sec 1331 (Constitution, treaty, federal law) and
26
<^A072
(Rev. ff 82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
THE PARTIES
<&A072
(Rev.8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
by t h e Kawaiisu T r i b a l members. P l a i n t i f f r e p r e s e n t s t h e
t h e a c t i o n s o r i n a c t i o n s o f t h e Department o f I n t e r i o r and
d i r e c t l y , a d v e r s e l y , and i r r e p a r a b l y a f f e c t e d by t h e
c o n t i n u e d o m i s s i o n s a n d a c t i o n s o f t h e Department of
Kern. P l a i n t i f f a n d T r i b e w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be i n j u r e d by
D e f e n d a n t s c o l l e c t i v e u n l a w f u l a c t i o n s u n t i l and u n l e s s
f i n d s t h e f i l i n g f e e a b u r d e n t o bear. P l a i n t i f f i s t r y i n g
t o s e c u r e Counsel.
Defendant, Kern County, S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , USA i s
s u e d i n i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as P r o j e c t Lead Agency f o r
2009.
Kawaiisu Tribe
Â
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
Defendant, Department of Interior, is sued in its
2
official capacity as the United States Federal Agency
3
charged with, among other things, supervising the Bureau
4
Indian Affairs, the National Parks Service and Federal
5
6
Trust responsibilities for Native Americans and Native
7 American Tribes.
8 CAUSES OF ACTION
9 FIRST CLAIM
10
AS TO DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
11
Breach of Fiduciary Duty (as to the Tribe - Omitting a
12
historic Tribe from the Federal Reqister) Article 1.
13
Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, Indian
14
16
<^A072
(Rev. 8/82]
? *
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
available to other federally-recognized historic tribes by
2
virtue of their goverment-to-government relationship with
3
the United States 25 C.F.R. Sub. Sec. 83.12(a).
4
This claim meets the criteria of the Indian Commerce
5
6
Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution,
14
Treaty D (EX. 2), 10 June 1851 at Camp Persifer F. Smith on
-0 72
(Rev. WB2)
9 Â
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Simply put,
2
fiduciaries must exhibit the highest form of trust,
3
fidelity and confidence, and are expected to act in the
4
best interest of their clients at all times."
5
6
The injury caused to the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon by
14
project, or the preparation of the projects EIR.
26
U 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
*
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
FIRST CLAIM AUTHORITIES
2
A r t i c l e 1, S e c t i o n 8 , C l a u s e 3 , U.S. Constitution, Indian
3
Commerce C l a u s e
4
6
J a n u a r y 12, 1891, I 26 S t a t . , 712. T r u s t Continued
A c t ) d i v i d e d up r e s e r v a t i o n l a n d s i n t o i n d i v i d u a l l a n d
14
15 h o l d i n g s f o r t r i b a l members
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
? a
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
T r u s t a t Common Law
2
Reserved R i g h t s D o c t r i n e
3
Congress P l e n a r y Power
4
F i f t h Amendment T r u s t p r o p e r t y must n o t be t a k e n w i t h o u t
5
6
' j u s t compensation''
26
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82]
? Â
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
I
c l e a r l y e v i n c e an i n t e n t t o change boundaries b e f o r e
2
d i m i n i s h m e n t w i l l be found."
3
4
SECOND CLAIM
5
AS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
6
10
Amendment 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 1291-1297, Indian
12
13 P l a i n t i f f r e p e a t s and i n c o r p o r a t e s paragraphs 1
14
t h r o u g h 1 8 set f o r t h i n t h e SUMMARY.
15
The K a w a i i s u T r i b e o f T e j o n p e t i t i o n s t h e C o u r t f o r
16
emergency r e l i e f t o restore t h e H i s t o r i c F e d e r a l l y -
17
Recognized T e j o n / S e b a s t i a n R e s e r v a t i o n t o T r u s t s t a t u s .
18
19
( E X H I B I T #1: L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s Ceded Map #311)
20 The Department o f I n t e r i o r v i o l a t e d t h e i r a p p o i n t e d
21 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
22
A r t i c l e I S e c t i o n 8 C l a u s e 3 , A c t s of C o n g r e s s , E x e c u t i v e
23
O r d e r s of t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d Supreme
24
Court r u l i n g s .
25
26
-0 72
(Rev. WB2)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
Before Kern County voted on the Tejon Mountain Village
2
Development, the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon asked the Kern
3
County Board of Supervisors to show the Tribe a
4
Congressional Act that clearly shows intent to remove or
5
6
recind the Tejon/Sebastian Reservation. Chairman Robinson
14
property the case is addressing. This 1924 case lacked a
16 that there was no claim made for the Disenos by the Tribe.
17 Quite to the contrary, the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon signed a
18
treaty in 1851, which met the Claim's Commission
19
requirements. Furthermore, Tribal members were not citizens
20
of the U.S. until 1924 and it was the responsibility of the
21
Department of the Interior to protect and preserve the
22
<kA0 72
(Rev. W82)
? Â
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
SECOND CLAIM AUTHORITIES
2
Mattz v. A r n e t t 412 U.S. 481 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
3
United States v. Washington (1974)
4
A r t i c l e 1, S e c t i o n 8, C l a u s e 3 , U.S. Constitution, Indian
5
6
Commerce C l a u s e
R e s t o r a t i o n of I n d i a n S c h o o l s t o t r u s t l a n d
14
23
h o l d i n g s f o r t r i b a l members
25 Congress e s t a b l i s h e d T e j o n / S e b a s t i a n I n d i a n R e s e r v a t o n and
26
U 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe of v. Department of Interior and
"just compensation"
Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Waives
^A0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
M i t c h e l l 11)
h e l d " ( a ) Only C o n g r e s s c a n d i v e s t a n I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n o f
c l e a r l y e v i n c e a n i n t e n t t o change b o u n d a r i e s b e f o r e
d i m i n i s h m e n t w i l l be found."
THIRD CLAIM
AS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
P l a i n t i f f r e p e a t s and i n c o r p o r a t e s p a r a g r a p h s 1
t h r o u g h 1 8 s e t f o r t h i n t h e SUMMARY.
The Kawaiisu T r i b e o f ~ e j o ni s b e i n g d e n i e d i t s
" I n d i a n C o u n t r y w , as g u a r a n t e e d i n t h e T r e a t y o f Guadalupe
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of interior and
CountryM.
It is the responsibility of the Department of Interior
1
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Sac and Fox Nation , 508 U.S. 114
2
(1993) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480
3
U.S. 202, 207 n.5 (1987)
4
6
Commerce Clause
% A 0 72
(Rev. 8/81
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
Trust at Common Law
2
Reserved Rights Doctrine
3
Congress Plenary Power
4
6 j u s t compensation"
14
US v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983) (Mitchell 11)
11
Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court
26
<^A072
(Rev. 8/82]
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
c l e a r l y e v i n c e a n i n t e n t t o change b o u n d a r i e s b e f o r e
2
diminishment w i l l be found."
3
4
FOURTH CLAIM
5
AS TO THE COUNTY OF KERN
6
9
Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., Public
10
Resources Code Section 21167.3 (a), CEQA 21167, 21177, Pub.
11
Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850, 4852 et seq,
12
Pub. Res. Code 5097.98, Section 21084, 21084.1, Pub. Res.
13
14
Code 21083, 21083.2, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
16
17 P l a i n t i f f r e p e a t s and i n c o r p o r a t e s p a r a g r a p h s 1
18
t h r o u g h 18 set f o r t h i n t h e SUMMARY.
19
The EIR f o r Tejon Mountain V i l l a g e , LLC does n o t
20
comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of CEQA and NAGPRA. This project
21
known as Tejon Mountain Village (TMV) contains historical
22
24 section 5020.1 (k) and 5024.1 (g), eligible for listing in,
25 the California Register of Historical Resources, and
26
'&A072
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v.Department of Interior and
1
requires that the Public Agency must treat the resources as
I
significant. The site is a Federal Indian Reservation
3
noticed by California State Registered Landmark No. 133
4
6
fits all four criteria required for such consideration
14
California history and history and 21083.2 (without time
22
eligibility for inclusion in California Register of
26
^A0 72
(Rev.8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
1
cumulatively considerable. The Secretary of ~nteriors
2
standards are not being followed.
3
Pub. Res. Code 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code
4
Section 7050.5, PRC 21082 contingency funding and time
5
6
allotment has not been built into procedures. Additionally,
14
verify their Lineal Descendancy to qualify them to be on
15 the site.
23 Washington (1974).
<\A072
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
owner/occupants c o n t i g u o u s t o t h e p a r c e l i n 1 5 0 8 7 ( 3 ) . The
T r i b e o n l y found o u t a b o u t t h e p r o j e c t when s e e i n g a
p o s t i n g on a County b u l l e t i n board w h i l e a p p e a r i n g a t t h e
County Chambers f o r a n o t h e r h e a r i n g . T h i s l a c k o f n o t i c e on
t h i s p r o j e c t i s i n e x c u s a b l e based on p a s t h i s t o r y o f n o t i c e
i n s l a v e r y and murdered a t t h e T e j o n / S e b a s t i a n R e s e r v a t i o n
t h i s p r o j e c t . The Address D i s t r i b u t i o n L i s t f o r t h e D r a f t
E I R i s 81 p a g e s l o n g w i t h o v e r 2000 p e o p l e r e c e i v i n g t h e
document. Somehow t h e h i s t o r i c T r i b e w i t h t h e o l d e s t
t o r e q u i r e t h e A p p l i c a n t t o p r o v i d e documentation of
Termination o f t h e R e s e r v a t i o n by Congress, o t h e r w i s e t h e y
j u r i s d i c t i o n as a S t a t e . By t h e October 5 , h e a r i n g t h e
I n d i a n T r u s t Land.
did not review the EIR which they should have because this
straight.
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
The US Department of Defense maintains a low-level
2
flight path over the project and was not noticed. CEQA
3
21098, 21080.4, 21092
4
CEQA Section 21167 and 21108 (a) The Oct 5, 2009 vote
5
6
by the Board of Supervisors initiates the firsts step in
14
of the land is even still under the Williamson Act for two
<^A072
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
o b j e c t i o n s and i n d i c a t e d t h e v a r i o u s r e a s o n s why t h e
t h a t t h e T r i b e had n o t been n o t i c e d on t h e P r o j e c t , t h a t
t h a t t h e P r o j e c t i s being developed on l a n d t h a t i s F e d e r a l
v i d e o w i t h t h e Board of S u p e r v i s o r s t h e week b e f o r e t h e i r
I n t h i s manner t h e t r i b e a g a i n lodged i t s o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e
p r o j e c t i n d i c a t i n g v i o l a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e Sacred
1
t h a t t h e P r o j e c t cannot be developed on t h e F e d e r a l Land
2
t h a t is t h e T r i b e ' s I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n .
3
I t should be noted t h a t t h e r e were o n l y 1 3 days between
4
t h e Kern County Planning Commission h e a r i n g ( 3 t o 2 v o t e )
5
6
and t h e Board of S u p e r v i s o r s h e a r i n g on t h i s p r o j e c t . T h i s
7 s h o r t e n e d t i m e made it i m p o s s i b l e f o r an i n t e r n a l County
8 Appeal.
9 V i o l a t i o n of CEQA 21091, 30 Day Review P e r i o d .
10
The Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon w a s n o t g i v e n a copy of t h e E I R
11
and Planning Department documents u n t i l a f t e r t h e October
12
5, 2009 Board of S u p e r v i s o r h e a r i n g f i n i s h e d a t 4:30pm and
13
14
t h e v o t e had a l r e a d y been concluded i n s u p p o r t of t h e
15 Project.
%A0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
2
FIFTH CLAIM
AS TO THE COUNTY OF KERN
3
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
4 Amendment
5
6
Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1
14
States derive from the same Fourteenth Amendment yet those
26
U 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
?
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and
Kawaiisu Tribe did not get a thirty day review of the CEQA
EIR document and in fact the Kawaiisu Tribe was only
(June 10, 1851) with the Kawaiisu Tribe that was signed on
the property at Camp Persifer Smith. When the United States
1
Tribe produced a ten minute video to provide an easy to
-7
14
formal reservation for the Kawaiisu tribe but only a shared
21
expertise as a Government - to - Government agency and
consultant on the Cultural Resources on their aboriginal
22
QAO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
approach to applying the laws of the United States and the
2
State of California. Public Law 86-634, July 12, 1960,
3
HR4386, 74 Stat. 469
4
6
hearing indicated that four of the five Kern County
14
discriminating against the Tribe because of the Tribe's
fsA0 72
(Rev.8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
n a t i o n a l i t y ; and t h e equal p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e l a w s i s a
2
p l e d g e o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f e q u a l laws." H e also n o t e d t h a t
3
t h e c o u r t had p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d t h a t it w a s a c c e p t a b l e t o
4
h o l d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t h e l a w l i a b l e when t h e y a b u s e d
5
6
t h e i r authority.
7 H i r a b a y a s h i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 3 2 0 US 81, 1943) C o u r t
8 r e c o g n i z e d t h a t " D i s t i n c t i o n s between c i t i z e n s s o l e l y based
9
b e c a u s e of t h e i r a n c e s t r y are by t h e i r v e r y n a t u r e o d i o u s
10
t o a f r e e p e o p l e whose i n s t i t u t i o n s are founded upon t h e
11
d o c t r i n e of e q u a l i t y . F o r t h a t r e a s o n , l e g i s l a t i v e
12
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n based o n race a l o n e h a s
13
14
o f t e n been h e l d t o be a d e n i a l o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n . "
23 o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r tribes t o be become i n v o l v e d a t s e v e r a l
24 s t e p s i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a n EIS, i n c l u d i n g : C o o p e r a t i n g
25 agencies - When t h e e f f e c t s of a p r o p o s e d a c t i o n may o c c u r
26
tiA0 72
(Rev. 8182)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
p r i v a t e or o t h e r n o n - f e d e r a l e n t i t y , and t h e f e d e r a l agency
knows t h a t i t s involvement i s r e a s o n a b l y f o r e s e e a b l e , t h e
CEQ r e g u l a t i o n s d i r e c t f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s t o promptly c o n s u l t
Commerce C l a u s e
h o l d i n g s f o r t r i b a l members
Congress e s t a b l i s h e d T e j o n / S e b a s t i a n I n d i a n R e s e r v a t o n and
A p p r o p r i a t e d $250,000 " t o d e f r a y t h e e x p e n s e of s u b s i s t i n g
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
protection"
Indian T r u s t Doctrine
T r u s t a t Common Law
Reserved R i g h t s D o c t r i n e
Congress P l e n a r y Power
F i f t h Amendment T r u s t p r o p e r t y must n o t be t a k e n w i t h o u t
' j u s t compensationr'
S e c t i o n 702 o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t . Waives
s o v e r e i g n immunity o f f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s f o r a c t i o n s
f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l ' s a c t i o n o r f a i l u r e t o act.
o f I n t e r i o r must p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e a c c o u n t i n g .
1
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)
..
?
Mitchell 11)
3
United States v. White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)
4
6
held "(a) Only Congress can divest an Indian reservation of
11
SIXTH CLAIM
12 AS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
13
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
14
Amendment
15
Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1
16
through 18 set forth in the SUMMARY.
17
18
The Department of Interior has not treated the
25
26
-0 72
(Rev.8\82)
Q
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and
C o n s u l t a n t s , M o n i t o r s and b r i n g s i n Most L i k e l y
Descendants, t h e Department o f I n t e r i o r i s n o t p r o v i d i n g
t h e o v e r s i g h t t o d i s c o v e r t h a t most o f t h e p e o p l e u s e d i n
C D I B Numbers i s s u e d by t h e Department o f I n t e r i o r .
The F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s a r e n o t b e i n g f o l l o w e d b e c a u s e
o f t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e Department o f I n t e r i o r and t h e
Kawaiisu T r i b e o f T e j o n i s b e i n g i n j u r e d a s a r e s u l t .
E I R t h a t t h e A p p l i c a n t "owns" t h e r e m a i n s o f o u r Ancestors.
E t h n o c i d e , and T h e f t o f T r i b a l Economic R e s o u r c e s w i t h o u t
program. Many of o u r s i n g l e p a r e n t s a r e r e f u s e d a h i g h e r
t o d r o p o u t o f s c h o o l b e c a u s e t h e y are hands on l e a r n e r s .
W e a r e a t r a d i t i o n a l t r i b e and o f t e n h a v e t o p r a c t i c e o u r
r e l i g i o n , l a n g u a g e and o t h e r c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s i n secret.
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
These conditions increase the rate of depression in the
2
community.
3
The actions of the Department of Interior keeps us at
4
a poverty level that makes it impossible to address the
5
6
needs of our tribal community in the way that they should
7 be.
8 SIXTH CLAIM AUTHORITIES
9
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371
10
(1980) Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.
11
Fifth Amendment 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 1291-1297
12
United States v. Washington (1974)
13
14
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, Indian
15 Commerce Clause
16 June 24, 1924 Indian Citizenship Act
17 January 12, 1891, I 26 Stat., 712. Trust Continued
18
18 USC Sec. 1091 Genocide Law
19
18 USC Sec. 1151 Indian Country defined
20
General Assembly Resolution 217 A (111) International Bill
2I
of Human Rights, 10 December 1948
22
24
25
26
^A0 72
(Rev. 8182)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
Statutes at Large 24, 388-91 General Allotment Act or Dawes
1
Act) divided up reservation lands into individual land
3
holdings for tribal members
4
(10 Stat. 226 238) March 3, 1853 Session 11, Thirty-Second
5
14
Indian Trust Doctrine
26
% A 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
1
I n d i a n T r u s t Fund Management Reform A c t o f 1994. S e c r e t a r y
2
o f I n t e r i o r must p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e a c c o u n t i n g .
3
US v . M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 ( 1 9 8 3 ) itchel ell 11)
4
6
T r i b e s are "denominated d o m e s t i c , d e p e n d a n t n a t i o n s . "
15 c l e a r l y e v i n c e a n i n t e n t t o change b o u n d a r i e s b e f o r e
16 d i m i n i s h m e n t w i l l be found."
17 (CEQ), 40 C.F.R. p t s . 1500-1508. CEQ r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e
18
a g e n c i e s t o c o n t a c t I n d i a n tribes and p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
19
f o r t r i b e s t o b e become i n v o l v e d a t s e v e r a l s t e p s i n t h e
20
p r e p a r a t i o n o f a n EIS, i n c l u d i n g : C o o p e r a t i n g a g e n c i e s -
21
When t h e e f f e c t s o f a proposed a c t i o n may o c c u r "on a
22
26
%A072
(Rev. U82)
Kawaiisu Tribe of tfbn v. Department of Interior and ~ o u m em,
f CA
a f f e c t e d I n d i a n tribe" t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s c o p i n g
agency p r e p a r e s a n E I S f o r a proposed a c t i o n , t h e a n a l y s i s
d i s c u s s i o n s of p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t s between t h e proposed
a c t i o n and t h e o b j e c t i v e s of F e d e r a l , r e g i o n a l , S t a t e , and
l o c a l ( a n d i n t h e case of a r e s e r v a t i o n , I n d i a n t r i b e ) l a n d
p r o v i d e s p u b l i c n o t i c e of a NEPA-related h e a r i n g , p u b l i c
t h e n o t i c e s h a l l i n c l u d e n o t i c e t o I n d i a n t r i b e s "when
a d d i t i o n , i f t h e proposed f e d e r a l agency a c t i o n i s i n
r e s p o n s e t o an a c t i o n planned by a p r i v a t e o r o t h e r non-
involvement i s r e a s o n a b l y f o r e s e e a b l e , t h e CEQ r e g u l a t i o n s
RELIEF REQUESTED
1
a copy of the Federal Register stating such in 60 days to
2
this court.
3
Order DO1 to include in the Federal Register a
4
statement of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's "Indian Countryw
5
6
as defined by Library of Congress California Cession Map
7 #286.
8 Order DO1 to restore the 75,000 acre Tejon/Sebastian
9
Indian Reservation as Trust lands of the Kawaiisu Tribe of.
10
Tejon.
11
Order DO1 to restore the Tejon/Sebastian Indian
12
Reservation School Building and land as Trust property of
13
14
the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. (Public Law 85-31, May 16,
26
<^A072
(Rev.8/82]
? a
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Departmentof Interiorand County of Kern,CA
1
Order DO1 to provide compensation for accrued revenues
2
from resource extraction on the Tejon/Sebastian Indian
3
Reservation $1,500,000,000.
4
6
suffering $3,000,000,000.
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe of
Â
v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
Require that the new policy incorporate training and
2
oversight, before previous authorities or jurisdictions are
3
returned by the National Parks Service to the California
4
Native American Heritage Commission. Require DO1 to enforce
5
6
that the California Native American Heritage Commission
14
Intellectual Property and are to be completely avoided and
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
 Â
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
existence of an Indian Reservation, the fact that the
2
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon signed a Treaty on the property and
3
made a claim to the property within the deadline of the
4
10
11
18
LIST OF EXHIBITS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS
19
EX. 1: Map #311 (75,000 Acre Tejon/Sebastian Reservation)
20
EX. 2: Map #286 (20 Million Acre Kawaiisu Indian Country)
21
EX. 3: Fr. Francisco Garces Diseno Map for the Kawaiisu
22
23
EX. 4: Kawaiisu Tribe names, 1905 Handbook/American Indians
QA0 72
(Rev.8/82)
e
Kawaiku Tribe of Tejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
1
EX. 7 : Bureau of Ethnology Congressional Transmittal Page
2
EX. 8: Fr. Francisco Garces Full Size Map
3
EX. 9: Treaty D , June 1 0 , 1 8 5 1
4
EX. 1 0 : 1 8 7 7 Map
5
13
14
EX. 1 7 : Ten Minute VIDEO ON DVD (and YOU TUBE)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
QA0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
EX. 1
EX. 2
EX. 3
ox, pt. A, LLL, J L ~ Y U . J^-awa.-1 t
Eawaibatnnya (-?k-v^ci-
as the Watermelon da
(Cloud) phratrv [of the
in 8th Rep. B. A.E., 39, '
Â¥ 1 .
t
EX. 4
BY JAMES BURGER
C a U f d a n s t d t writer
[email protected]
ERICA
NORTH O F MEXICO
FREDERICK W E B B HODGE,
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
OF AMERICANETHNOLOGY,
BUXEAU
D. C., J d y I, 1905,
Wiash7,'71,yt0,77,
SIR:I have t h honor
~ to submit herewith the manuscript of Bulletin
30 of the Bui*cau of American Ethtlologj?, entitled '' Handbook of
A%merica~~ lnclia11s," which has been in preparation for a number of
ye.ars and has been cou~pletedf o r publication under the editorsllip
of &h-F. IV..Hodge. The Hindbook contains a descriptive list of
the stocks, confederacies, tribes, tribal divisions, and settlements north
of hfexico, accompanied Gith the variou$ nal~icsbj- m~lljch-these have
been known, together with biogi=aphiesof Indians of tiote, sketches of
- archeology, manners, arts, customs, a,nd institutions, md
their l~istorv,
EX. 8
?amp Perstfer F. Smith
TREATY MADE AND CONCLUDED AT CAMP PERSIFER F. SMITH, AT THE TEXAN PASS,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, JUNE 10,1851, BEWEEN GEORGE W. BARBOUR UNITED
STATES COMMISSIONER, AND THE CHIEFS, CAPTAINS AND HEAD MEN OF THE
"CASTAKE," "TEXON," &C., TRIBES OF INDIANS.
A treaty of peace and friendship made and entered into at Camp Persifer F. Smith at the Texon
pass, in the State of California, on the tenth day of June, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, between
George W. Barbour, one of the commissioners appointed by the President of the United States to
make treaties with the various Indian tribes in the State of California, and having full authority to,
act, of the first part, and the chiefs, captains and head men of the following tribes of Indians, to wit:
Castake, Texon, San lmirio, Uvas, Carises, Buena Vista, Sena-hu-ow, Holo-cla-me, Soho-nuts,
To-ci-a, and Hol-mi-uh, of the second part.
ARTICLE I.
The said tribes of lndians jointly and severally acknowledge themselves to be under the exclusive
jurisdiction, control, and management of the government of the United States, and undertake and
promise on their part, to live on terms of peace and friendship with the government of the United
States and the citizens thereof, with each other, and with all Indian tribes at peace with the United
States.
ART. 2.
It is agreed between the contracting parties, that for any wrong or injuy done individuals of either
party, to the person or property of those of the other, no personal or individual retaliation shall be
attempted, but in all such cases the party aggrieved shall apply to the proper civil authorities for a
redress of such wrong or injury; and to enable the civil authorities more effectively to suppress
crime and punish guilty offenders, the said lndian tribes jointly and severally promise to aid and
assist in bringing to justice any person or persons that may be found at any time among them, and
who shall be charged with the commission of any crime or misdemeanor.
ART. 3.
It is agreed between the parties that the following district of countty be set apart and forever held
for the sole use and occupancy of said tribes of lndians, to wit: beginning at the first forks of Kern
h~tp:l/w.militarymuseurn.org/CpSmith.html Page 1 of 4
Camp Persrfer F. Smith
river, above the Tar springs, near which the road travelled by the military escort, accompanying
said commissioner to this camp crosses said river, thence down the middle of said river to the
.Carises lake, thence to Buena Vista lake, thence a straight line from the most westerly point of said
. Buena Vista lake to the nearest point of the Coast range of mountains, thence along the base of
said range to the mouth or westerly terminus of the Texon pass or Canon, and from thence a
straight line to the beginning; reserving to the government of the United States and to the State of
California, the right of way over said territory, and the right to erect any military post or posts,
houses for agents, officers and others in the service or employment of the government of said
territory. In consideration of the foregoing, the said tribes of Indians, jointly and severally, forever
quit claim to the government of the United States to any and all other lands to which they or either
of them now have or may ever had any claim or title whatsoever.
ART. 4.
In further consideration of the premises and for the purpose of aiding in the subsistence of said
tribes of Indians for the period of two years from this date, it is agreed by the party of the first part to
furnish said tribes jointly, (to be distributed in proper proportions among them,) with one hundred
and fifty beef cattle, to average five hundred pounds each, for each year. It is further agreed that as
soon after the ratification of this treaty by the President and Senate of the United States, as may be
practicable and convenient, the said tribes shall be furnished jointly (to be distributed as aforesaid)
and free of charge, with the following articles of property, to wit: six large and six small ploughs,
twelve sets of harness complete, twelve work mules or horses, twelve yoke of California oxen, fifty
axes, one hundred hoes, fifty spades or shovels, fifty mattocks or picks, all necessary seeds for
sowing and planting for one year, one thousand pounds of iron, two hundred pounds of steel, five
hundred blankets, two pairs of coarse pantaloons and two flannel shirts for each man and boy over
fifteen years old, one thousand yards of linsey cloth, same of cotton cloth, and the same of coarse
calico, for clothing for the women and children, twenty-five pounds of thread, three thousand
needles, two hundred thimbles, six dozen pairs of scissors, and six grindstones.
ART. 5.
The United States agree further to furnish a man skilled in the business of farming, to instruct said
tribes and such others as may be placed under him, in the business of farming; one blacksmith,
and one man skilled in working wood, (wagon maker or rough carpenter;) one superior and such
assistant school-teachers as may be necessary; all to live among, work for, and teach said tribes
and such others as they may be required to work for and teach. Said farmer, blacksmith, worker in
wood and teachers to be supplied to said tribes, and continued only so long as the President of the
United States shall deem advisable; a school house and other buildings necessary for the persons
mentioned in this article, to be erected at the cost of the government of the United States.
This treaty to be binding on the contracting parties when ratified and confirmed by the President
and Senate of the United States of America.
In testimony whereof, the parties have hereto signed their names, and affixed their seals, this the
day and year first written.
Page 2 of 4
9 -2
a
Camp Perstfer F. Smith
Castake:
1 San Imirio:
JOSE MARIA, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
FRANCISCO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
I uvas:
1 Carises:
RAYMUNDO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
JUAN, his x mark. [SEAL.]
JUAN DE DIOS, his x mark. [SEAL.]
1 Buena Vista:
Page 3 of 4
4- 3
Camp Persffer F. Smith
To-ci-a:
Signed and sealed in duplicate, after having been read and fully explained in the presence of-
H. S. BURTON, Interpreter.
KIT BARBOUR, Secretary.
W. S. KING, Assistant Surgeon, United States Army.
J. H. LENDRUM, Brevet Captain, Third Artillery.
J. HAMILTON, Lieutenant, Third Artillery.
H. G.J. GIBSON, Second Lieutenant, Third Artillery.
WALTER M. BOOTH.
[WELCOME! [LOCATION AND HOURS1 [CURRENT EXHIBITS! fMG WALTER P. STORY LIBRARY! [SATELLITE AND PARTNER MUSEUMS1
[HOW CAN I HELP?l M A T S NEW71 rUPCOMlHG EVENTS1 fONLINE BOOKSTORq
fCALtFORNIA CENTER FOR-MILITARY HISTORY1&INKS1
Questions and comments concerning (his site should be directed to (he Webmaster
Page 4 of 4
?- Y
EX. 10
EX. 11
How Tejon Reservation (or Sebastian Reservation) wa
a ablished
pa-.
dctm necessary forsnbsbtcnce and
SKuceQiuwout. -For r
payment o tho
ing pence with said Indinns.
third of ten instalmcnts in pro-
ft m vifions, merchandifo, etc., and the tninsprtatioa of (he annic to c ~ ~ n
tribes of Indinna, par stwenth article of the treaty of Fort h m i c , of
seventeenth of Sopternbar, one thoouuid eight hundred and fifty-me,
prorfw- sixty thousand dollars: JPrwided, That the -8 ahall not be paid aniil
tho mid tribes of Indians shall bun assented to the amendments of the
Scnnto of the United States to th6 above recited treaty;
Statotic*. For continning the collcyaim and for publishing tho statistic!; and other
1B*7 (h. 65. infornaatwn, culhoritcd by tho act of third March, eighteen luindral mil
ft~rty-m, and solxiquoat acts, wvwtwa t b o a w d six hundrwl mid
1 ~ ' : o h . o o - twenty dollnra and fitly oeota;
JuhnP.GaltitB Fijt the a mciit of tho accounts of Governor John I?. Gaines and
Â¥r
(T.
>LWdk- Courtnay s?. ^ate,, fir expenses i n a i m by limn iu q~tcliingthe
diflScultics with lha E o p e lUver Indians of Oregon, in tbc year cightecn
hundred and fifty-one, four thousand nine Iiuodrç and seventy-nine
dollnra ;
llednh To onable tho Department to procure the mod& of tho noxi President
of tho United States for presentation to Cbief'aand Headmen of the Indinn
tribes, twcnty-fiva hundred dollars;
~wtefyrewr- Tht the President of the United States, if upon cxaminathn lie t h l l
' miow m a p rove of the plan hereinafter provided for the protection of the
bo nnd he is htttby bolted to mçtfire niili~rye ~ ~ ~ 5 - a -
Ind&uaaoitKrii- lions from the oblic domuin in Ihe State of California or tho Tcrritorici
. . cd. of Uiflh nod &W H ~ x i bordering
c~ on mid Stote, for Indirtn purposes:
., . . Prwidfd, That such rcscmtiona shall not conwin mom than twenty-five
thousand acres in cacli:.And prwided f(trIfur, That said reservation
.. . shall not be mado upon any lands inhnbitcd by citizens of Californut, nnd
tlio earn of two hundred mid fifty thouifand dollars i s hereby appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury 00: oihfirw'ao appro rmtcd, to dtefrty
. ... . . ho a$)- of f~ilsiatingtho I^'- in California removing them
to sai .rescrrntions for protection: Prmided, farther, if 1110 forag'ung
1666,ch-2M. lan shall be adopted by the President, the threo Indian ngtncic* in
ktifbniai b d be tlicraupn cbuluhed.
u q ~ ~SKC. ~ 2.wAnd &s i t further enacted, That iho President of ihv United
:S$eri, Stotoa bo, and ho hereby is, authorized, immediately after the passn of
'
*È bm. tbk act, to enter into ncgotintion with the Indian tribes west of the Sbiio
of Missouri and Iowa for the pnrpwie of sccuring the nsscntof aaid tribes
to the seulement of iho citiiens of tho 'United States upno iha lands
claimed by said Indians, and for Ac purpose of ~xlingiu'shingtho title
. . of mid Indian tribes in wlwle or in purt to anid lands ; and tbat, for iLe
<^X/2-/
How Tejon Reservation (or Sebastian Reservation)
* . .-
Appropriations shall in every case by paid directly to the tribe to whom it shall be due,..and ...Indian tribes
are denied representation by an attorney when pursuing claims against Departments of the Government
(page 239 American Memory site)
CHAP. CSXXIX. -
An dd ~/i(AtTVwupCTtottlXl^/A)OfcifÇr
$ m g z f dm'y
~ (k fuel imrashtyt!ÈItuUfS
Marcha,IS&a.
Page 3 of 5
1 2 - & -
.. . .
'0 .--..-
. .. - .as- --a, .* . - Ã
Presented at the August 13, 2009, 7PM Kern County Planning Commission hearing at
the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfied, CA.
I am David Laughing Horse Robinson, Chair of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon Reservation,
duly elected by members of the Kawaiisu Tribe.
As the Tribe's representative I am here to protest the continued neglect of the Tejon
Ranch Corporation and the County of Kern with regards to International, U.S. and
California State law as it pertains to the Kawaiisu Tribe.
The application by Tejon Mountain Village, LLC under review today, August 13, 2009
must be denied due to the fact that the Kawaiisu Tribe has not been legally noticed on
this action. 1 am asking for a 90 Day extension on the comment period, before a
decision is made, to submit and post documents on this matter.
The maps and documents in this book, being submitted for the record, are part of the
Library of Congress Congressional record of the Kawaiisu Tribes jurisdiction on matters
pertaining to actions taken within our Indian Country and more specifically the
TejonfSebastian Reservation.
That 1853 Reservation Order followed another Executive Order given to all Indians that
different agencies would be set up for all tribes and all Indians were required to report to
their agency or become an Enemiy of the State and shot on site. Tejon Reservation was
established as the agency for the Kawaiisu Tribe to report to and the U.S. Government
put that land under trust for the tribe. That means that TejonISebastian Reservation
became Federal trust land.
Federal Trust Lands means the land can only be terminated through an Act of
Congress. Congress has not terminated the Trust responsibility of the TejonfSebastian
Reservation.
The Tejon Ranch Corporation does not hold title to the land they seek to develop. This
Trust land, surveyed by Surveyor General Beale comprised several Kawaiisu Ranchos
-
t Â
with rights conveyed by e Spanish, Mexican and US. Governments. Tejon Ranch
lands have been acquired unlawfully due to false evidence presented to the Supreme
Court. Additionally, The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to
transfer Trust lands, only Congress has the sole power to do that.
There are many laws that affect this hearing today. A Federal law called NAGPRA is the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Under NAGPRA the Kawaiisu
Tribe is to be notified, immediately when actions such as these are being proposed
where burials and Sacred Sites are going to be disturbed. That law requires a minimum
of 90 days written notice and personal contact. To this date, that has not happened.
This is the official notice to the County of Kern, Tejon Ranch Corporation and Tejon
Mountain Village, LLC on behalf of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon that none of the
International, Federal and State Laws have been complied with.
It is the responsibility of the County of Kern, Tejon Ranch Corporation and Tejon
Mountain Village, LLC to officially notify the Kawaiisu Tribe, both in writing and in person
at this address: PO Box 1547, Kernville, California 93238. (661) 378-1085, Email:
[email protected].
Laws pertaining to this action are included in my full letter included in this book I am
submitting for the record.
The legal violations fall under the following laws and other laws:
Sincerely,
The legal violations fall under the following laws and other
laws:
Governor Pete Wilson 1992 Executive Order W-26-92
CA Penal Code 5622 , 5623 (Archaeological Sites)
CA PRC Sections: 5020-5029.5, 5097 - 5097,993,7050.5,
21000 et seq.
CA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 7050,7052,8100,18950 et
seq.
CA Government Code 512600 - 512612
CA Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA and Title
24, Part 8
2007UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
1998California Health and Safety Code 7050, 7052, 8100
(cemetery)
1992Executive Order W-26-92 (CA Stewardship of Historical
Properties)
1990Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAG PRA)
1982California PRC 5097 - 5097.993, 7050.5
1979Archeological Resources Protection Act
1978American Indian Religious Freedom Act
1976California Native American Historical, Cultural and
Sacred Sites Act
1974Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
1970California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA)
1969National Environmental Policy Act
1968 Indian Bill of Rights
1966National Historic Preservation Act
1906American Antiquities Act
1854California Cemetery Act (Section 4)
1851Treaty of Camp Persifer F. Smith
1848Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
1824Constitution of Mexico
1821Treaty of Cordoba
Sincerely,
Iam here to ask you not to approve the Tejon Mountain Vi llage
Development.
First the NAGPRA AND CEQA Notice requirements for lineal Native
American descendants has not been met. That means Iwas not
given notice early on about any aspect of the project and many
tribal people who were removed to the Tejon Indian Reservation
were also not given notice. Our ancestors are buried on that
property and our religious sites are extensive.
A few days ago, just before this hearing, Tejon Ranch and the
Bakersfield Californian did a big Media Blitz with the Governor,
having him give the Tejon Mountain Village project a
Conservation award.
This process is clearly unlawful and unjust. How are we, the
Native People of this county supposed to let you know what is
going on when you do not notify the Native descendants about
projects that have such a clear and tragic history? Ifound out
about this project by accident, when Iattended a hearing to
-
a 0
à advocate for more County funds to keep our Libraries and Senior
- Center open in the Lake Isabella Valley.
The law is clear on this issue, Congress must clearly express such
an intent for repeal to exist. Our basic Human and Constitutional
Rights are being violated.
The decision you have before you today is, will you as a County
go forward with a decision to put housing on Federal land? Such
an act will violate the laws agreed to when California became a
a
a Â
State in 1850. I n the granting of the right to become a State it is
required that officials will not interfere with, abolish or claim lands
that are under federal jurisdiction and authority. We are talking
about something that is outside of your authority and makes the
taxpayers of Kern County liable for your actions.
Iam asking you here and now, has the Tejon Ranch and Tejon
Mountain Village presented you with the Act of Congress that
clearly terminates the Tejon Sebastian Indian Reservation? I f not,
You do not have a clear way to approve this development as it
has been presented.
As Istated early on, Iwas not given proper notice on this project
and have only been able to provide you with a small sample of
the documentation Ihave to make my claim.
Thank you,