Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon V Ken Salazar

N PAPER
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
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, ) Civil Case No.
9
by its Chairman, )
10
David Laughing Horse Robinson,) 1: 0 9'CV 0 1 9 7 7 0\W SMS
And, 1
11 DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON )
As Representative of the Class)
12 of Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon )
Persons, and 1
13 DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON,)
1 COMPLAINT
14
Plaintiffs, )
15 )
V. 1
16
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, )
17 Secretary KEN SALAZAR, )
18
in his official capacity and )
)
IS COUNTY OF KERN, 1
State of California, )
2C )
Defendants. )
21 1
-and- )
22
)
23 TEJON MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC )
Real Party in Interest. 1
24
2:
2f
-0 72
(Rev. US,
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
SUMMARY
1. I, Plaintiff, David Laughing Horse Robinson,
also known as Clyde David Robinson, am bringing this action
to this court on behalf of myself and as duly elected
Chairman of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. The Kawaiisu Tribe
of Tejon received California Tribal acknowledgement on
August 17, 1989, Number 1645093. I am descended from my
Grandmother, Stella Butterbredt Robinson Metz, California
Indian Roll Number 21529. My father, Clyde Lee Robinson's
California Indian Roll Number is 074317 and my California
Indian Roll Number is 53872. This action is timely filed,
within 30 days of the filing of the Notice of
Determination, by the County of Kern.
2. This case is before the court due to an
administrative oversight by The Department of Interi'

or. The
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon is a Tribe that has been recognized
by the United States since before 1934 and has been omitted
from the Federal Register list of entities recognized and
eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau
of Indian Affairs. This will require the Assistant
Secretary - Indian Af fairs to reaffirm the formal
recognition of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. Immediate

? a
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interiorand County of Kern,CA
action is requested from this court because of the immense

importance to the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon, its citizens,
and the citizens of California.
3. ~ l s o ,this case is before this court due to
another administrative oversight by the Department Of
Interior. The Federally recognized 75,000 acre
Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (Map #311 EXHIBIT 1) has
been unlawfully omitted from the list of Kawaiisu Tribe of
Tejon trust lands, due to the failure of the fiduciary
trust responsibility of the Department of Interior under

Executive Orders and Congressional Acts. This will require
the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs to restore the
Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation, Library of Congress
ceded map #311 (EX. I), to Trust. Immediate action is
requested from this court because of the immense importance
to the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon, its citizens, and the
citizens of California.
4. This request for emergency relief is necessary
to halt a massive development recently approved on the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's Federally Recognized Reservation
known as the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1).

The lead agency approving this massive development is the
? a
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
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
5. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon also asks this

5
6
court to define our "Indian Country" as set forth under
7 Treaty D, signed at Camp Persifer F. Smith, at the Texan

8 Pass, State of California, June 10, 1851, between George W.
9
Barbour United States Commissioner, and the Chiefs,
10
Captains and Head Men of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon.
11
Treaty D is defined on the Library of Congress Ceded Land
12
map #286 (EXHIBIT #2). Ceded Land Map #286 (EX. 2)
13
14
duplicates the Diseno maps of 1776 and 1777 by Father
15 Francisco Garces and Father Pedro Font for the Government

16 of Spain (EXHIBIT # 3 ) .
17 6. Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's "Indian Countryiris
18
outlined and defined in the 5fithCongress, lstSession, House
19
of Representatives Document Number 786 called the
20
Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American
21
Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

22
23 1896 - 97 and the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of
24 American Ethnology, Bulletin 30 Handbook of American

25 Indians North of Mexico published July 1, 1905. In the
26
-0 72
(Rev.8/82:
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
v. Department of Interior and County of Kem, CA
Ã 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
Ka-wig-a-suh,Kawishm, Kow-a'-sah, Kubakhye, Newool-ah,

5
6 Noches Colteches, Ta-hi-cha-pa-han-na, and Ta-hichp'
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
15 incorporating any of the names used to identify our Tribe:

16 Cobajais, Cobaji, Covaji, Kah-wisf-sah, Kawaiisu, Ka-wit-a-
17
suh, Kawishm, Kow-a?-sah, Kubakhye, Newoor-ah, Noches
18
Colteches, Ta-hi-cha-pa-han-na, and Ta-hichpt (EX. 4).
19
9. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon have been issued
20
over 32 Patented Indian Allotments. The United States
21
22
issued allotments to Kawaiisu Tribal members who lived on
23 the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1). This is

24 consistent with the Supreme Court finding of Mattz v.
25 Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973). In that case the unanimous
26
-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
7 that Supreme Court case the issuance of allotments reversed

8 termination; the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon have never been
9
terminated, hold allotments and have a reservation.
10
10. Plaintiff is in immediate danger of sustaining
11
irreversible injury if the court does not take action at
12
this time. Four of five of our Board of Supervisors
13
14
accepted large campaign donations from the development
15 Applicant. Governor Schwarzenegger accepted a large

16 campaign donation from Applicant after a PR appearance
17 before the Planning Commission vote. The machine is moving
18
forward to receive a favorable public and political outcome
19
while violating equal treatment for the Kawaiisu Tribe of
20
Tejon. Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon has a pre-historic and
21
historic claim to the property but was not noticed on a
22
23 development project that will create irreversible damage to
24 the tribe and is an unlawful act that meets the definition

25 of genocide and ethnocide .
26
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82
Kawaiisu Tribe of
Â
. 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
resort with two 18 hole golf courses on October 5, 2009.

5
6
his complex development is designed to also have three
7 hotels, 750 resort lodging units, 3,450 residences (on lots

8 up to 20 acres in size), 160,000 sq. feet of commercial
9
development, two helipads, fire facilities and more.
10
12. Defendant and Lead Agency, Kern County, has
11
approved this development on the ~awaiisuTribe of Tejon's
12
Indian Reservation, which is Federal property. Congress is
13
14
the only Branch of Government that has the power to
15 transfer Indian Reservation Lands and the State of

16 California agreed with those Federal Government guidelines
17 to gain Statehood. Kern County does not have Jurisdiction
18
to take this action. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon alerted
19
Defendant, Kern County, about this fact before the Kern
20
County Planning Commission voted on the project and before
21
the Board of Supervisors voted on the project. Public Law
22
23 86-634, July 12, 1960, HR4386, 74 Stat. 469: It is illegal
24 to destroy, deface, or remove boundary markers on Indian

25 Reservations or to tresspass.
26
-0 72
(Rev.8/82)
? a
13. Additionally, the EIR shows plans to destroy

over 40 pre-historic village sites as part of this
development and additional Sacred Sites and burials.
Illegal and offensive language is in the Lead Agency EIR

regarding these acts of Intellectual Property destruction,
Antiquities destruction and Cultural decimation; the EIR
states: ^'the property owner (who is also the owner of the
remains), and of any associated archaeological materials."

104 STAT. 3048, Public Law 101-601
Public Law 86-634, July 12, 1960, HR4386, 74 Stat. 469: It

is illegal to destroy, deface, or remove boundary markers
on ~ndianReservations or to tresspass.
14. Defendant, United States Department of

Interior has failed in their fiduciary responsibility to
hold and protect the Tribe from the unlawful taking of
their Reservation as required under the law. As trustee,
the Department of Interior should be advocating here on the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejonfs behalf. Department of Interior is
obligated under law to present to Kern County the finding
that the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1) has
never been terminated by Congress. The Department of
Interior (DOI) was obligated to present Treaty D, our

Kawaiisu Tribe o v.
Â
Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA
California Treaty, at the California Land Commission
hearings in the 1850's and 1860's. The DO1 is required to
put the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon in the Federal Register
listings of Historic Federally-Recognized Tribes. The DO1
is required to declare that the Kawaiisu ~ r i b eof Tejon
Indian Country covers the 20 million acre, 1776 Diseno as
recorded in the Library of Congress Ceded Land Map Number
286 (EX. 2). The DO1 is required to provide an accounting
and monthly revenue, plus interest, as reported to the
Department of Treasury, for the oil, mineral, water,
grazing and wages collected on the Tejon/Sebastian Indian
Reservation.
15. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's claim to the
property is not in dispute. Spain granted the Kawaiisu the
Diseno outlined by Father Garces (EX. 3) in 1776
(Recopilacion de las Indias, Bk. 4, Tit. 12, Laws 5, 7, 9,

14, 18; Bk. 6 , Tit. 3, Law 9; Hall, Mexican law, 36, 38,
40, 45, 49, 165; 2 White's New Recopilacion, pp. 50, 52,
242.). Mexico acquired the property by International Treaty
to hold in trust for the Tribe then transferred it by
International Treaty to the United States to hold in trust
( 1848 .
Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty) The Spanish and ~exican
Kawaiisu Tribe
0
laws protecting the Tribe were agreed to by the United

States and guaranteed by the 1848 treaty. The United States
negotiated Treaty D (10 June, 1851) with the Tribe to have
the Kawaiisu cede the 20 million acre Diseno (map #286 -
Exhibit 2) and reserve 1.2 million acres. The United States
established the first California Indian Reservation within
the 1.2 million acre reserve and established a 75,000 acre
Reservation (map #311 - EXHIBIT # 1 - Tejon/Sebastian

Reservation) for the Kawaiisu. An Indianschool was
established by the Department of Interior on the
Reservation and is still there. The United States issued
allotments to Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon members who lived on
the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation.
16. As this Complaint is being prepared,
television and newspaper reports indicate that the
Applicant is spending several hundreds of thousand dollars
to negotiate with other Tribes to build a Gaming Casino on

the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's Indian Reservation (EX. 1).
No mention of this Casino is in the Lead Agency, Kern
County's, EIR that was approved on October 5, 2009. At the
October 5 hearing, a public participant and an interested

environmental attorney brought up the omission of a Casino
? Â
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,
7 C a l i f o r n i a and t h e Department of I n t e r i o r must be b r o u g h t

8 b e f o r e t h i s Court t o f a c e t h e s e c h a r g e s . The Kawaiisu T r i b e
9
of Tejon i s f a c i n g i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , genocide and
10
e t h n o c i d e and s e e k s emergency i n t e r v e n t i o n .
11
18. A t t h e o u t s e t , t h e Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon
12
a s k s t h e Court t o g r a n t an i n j u n c t i o n o r s t a y p r o h i b i t i n g
13
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
23 t o 2 8 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505, t h e I n d i a n Tucker A c t . T h e A c t
24 conveys j u r i s d i c t i o n because t h e U.S. waives i t s s o v e r e i g n

25 immunity t o p e r m i t I n d i a n T r i b e s t o s u e f o r damages i n t h e
26
<Â072
(Rev. 8/82)
? a
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
otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal

5
6 Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe, band, or
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
15 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

16 This Court has jurisdiction because the claim presents
17 a question of Federal Indian Law.
18
This Court has jurisdiction because the monetary
19
relief exceeds $75,000.
20
Venue is proper in the District Court because a
21
substantial part of the events giving rise to the
22
23 Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district.
24 U.S.C. Sec 1391

25
26
<Â072
(Rev. ff 82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
Venue is also proper because of diversity of

citizenship.
Felix v. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317 (1892); Tiger v. Western
Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286 (1910); Smith v. Mosgrove, 51
Ore. 495 (1908); Frazee v. Piper, 51 Wash. 278 (1908);
Blackbody v. Maupin, 38 S. D. 621 (1917); United States v.
O'Gorman, 287 Fed. 135 (1923)
THE PARTIES
Tejon Mountain Village, LLC (TMV LLC), as Applicant,
is the real party in interest.
Plaintiff, David Laughing Horse Robinson is bringing
this action as a Kawaiisu Tribal member, a Kawaiisu Tribal
, Elder, a Kawaiisu elected Chairman and as a California
Indian bearing California Indian Roll Number 53872. Also
known as Clyde David Robinson, David Laughing Horse
Robinson is descended from his Grandmother, Stella
Butterbredt Robinson Metz, California Indian Roll Number
21529 and his father, Clyde Lee Robinson, California Indian

Roll Number 074317. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon California
State Tribal acknowledgement Number is 1645093, certified
August 17, 1989. Plaintiff follows in the footsteps of his
Grandmother and Father who were also elected Chairpersons
<&A072
(Rev.8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
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
i n t e r e s t s o f T r i b a l members who are s u f f e r i n g b e c a u s e o f
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
t h e County of Kern. The s u f f e r i n g i s economic, m e n t a l and
p h y s i c a l and f i t s t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f Genocide and E t h n o c i d e .
The T r i b e and P l a i n t i f f h a v e b e e n , are, and w i l l be
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
I n t e r i o r a n d t h e v i o l a t i o n s o f CEQA a n d NAGPRA by County o f
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
t h i s Court provides t h e r e l i e f prayed f o r i n t h i s
c o m p l a i n t . P l a i n t i f f i s a p e r s o n o f v e r y modest means who
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
S t a t e C l e a r i n g House (SCH) P r o j e c t #2005101018 c a l l e d Tejon
Mountain V i l l a g e by TMV LLC and T e j o n Ranch Company. The
Notice o f D e t e r m i n a t i o n (NOD) was f i l e d on O c t o b e r 1 3 ,
2009.
Kawaiisu Tribe
Â
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
15 Nonintercourse Act 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 177
16
17 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1

18
through 18 set forth in the SUMMARY.
19
The United States Department of Interior breached
20
their fiduciary duty to the Xawaiisu Tribe of Tejon when,
21
through administrative oversight, they omitted placing the
22
23 tribe's name on the Federal Register.
24 The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon is a historic tribe and

25 shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities
26
<Â072
(Rev. 8/82]
? *
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,
7 where the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon has not been terminated

8 and the Tribe's reservation has not been terminated.
9
The claim is made because the Department of Interior
10
maintains the Trust responsibility over the Kawaiisu Tribe
11
of Tejon as established by these actions: the United States
12
Government solicited the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon to sign
13
14
Treaty D (EX. 2), 10 June 1851 at Camp Persifer F. Smith on
15 what is now known as the Tejon Ranch. The US Government

16 expanded their trust responsibility to the Tribe with the
17 establishment of the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation
18
(EX. 1) on March 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 226 238).
19
The claim is brought under the Indian Tucker Act,
20
Trust at Common Law and the Fifth Amendment.
21
Until the Department of Interior reaffirms the formal

22
23 recognition of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon, the Department
24 of Interior remains in breach of their fiduciary duty as

25 Trustee of the Tribe.
26
-0 72
(Rev. WB2)
9 Â
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
7 omitting the Tribe from the Federal Register is that the

8 Tribe is unable to act in its official and legal authority
9
with the County of Kern.
10
For example, in the case of the Tejon Mountain Village
11
LLC (TMV LLC) Development, the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon was
12
not given Notice, by the County of Kern, about the TMV LLC
13
14
project, or the preparation of the projects EIR.
15 With the TMV LLC project, the injury caused is that

16 the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon is not being brought in under
17 many of the legal requirements of State CEQA and Federal
18
NAGPRA regulations such as: participating as a Consultant,
19
being listed as a Most Likely Descendant, participating in
20
Archeological surveys, consulting and taking possession
21
during Repatriation, protection of Sacred Sites and
22
23 intellectual property, participating in reburials and
24 monitoring the development during construction.

25
26
U 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
*
The Department of Interior's omission of the Tribe's

name from the Federal Register is also causing other injury
to the Tribe such as making it more difficult for the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon to restore their Reservation,
restore the Tribe's Indian Country, receive an accounting

of accrued revenues from natural resources extraction,
receive payment from Department of Interior and Department
of Treasury of those resource revenues, establish Tribal
law enforcement, attain funding for Tribal health care,
secure grants for Tribal education,-createTribal economic

development and maintain self-governance. The Tribe is
asking for money damages for some of these injuries as

outlined in "Relief Requested."
All of the above injuries taken together are resulting
in the continued impoverishment of the Kawaiisu Tribe of
Tejon and exacting genocide and ethnocide on the Kawaiisu

Tribe of Tejon in violation of 18 USC Sce. 1091 and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 10 December
1948, General Assembly Resolution 217 A (111) International
Bill of Human Rights.
? Â
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
J u n e 24, 1924 I n d i a n C i t i z e n s h i p Act

5
6
J a n u a r y 12, 1891, I 26 S t a t . , 712. T r u s t Continued
7 18 USC Sec. 1091 Genocide Law
8 18 USC Sec. 1151 I n d i a n Country d e f i n e d

9
General Assembly R e s o l u t i o n 217 A (111) I n t e r n a t i o n a l B i l l
10
of Human R i g h t s , 10 December 1948
11
Mattz v . A r n e t t 412 U.S. 481 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
12
S t a t u t e s a t Large 24, 388-91 General A l l o t m e n t Act o r D a w e s
13
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
16 ( 1 0 S t a t . 226 238) March 3 , 1853 S e s s i o n 11, Thirty-Second

17 Congress e s t a b l i s h e d T e j o n j 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
18
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 expense of s u b s i s t i n g
19
...
t h e I n d i a n s and removing them t o s a i d r e s e r v a t i o n s f o r
20
protection"
21
(10 S t a t . 686, 699) March 3 , 1855
22
23 United States v . Washington (1974)
24 I n d i a n Tucker A c t 28 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505
25 Indian Trust Doctrine

26
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
? a
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''
7 S e c t i o n 702 of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t . Waives

8 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
9 " s e e k i n g r e l i e f o t h e r t h a n money damages" i n v o l v i n g a
10
f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l ' s a c t i o n or f a i l u r e t o a c t .
11
I n d i a n T r u s t Fund Management Reform A c t of 1994. S e c r e t a r y
12
o f I n t e r i o r must p r o v i d e adequate a c c o u n t i n g .
13
US v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983) ( M i t c h e l l 11)

14
15 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. ( 5 P e t . ) 1 (1831)
16 T r i b e s are "denominated domestic, dependant n a t i o n s . "

17 Worcester v , Georgia, 31 U.S. ( 6 P e t . ) 515 (1832)
18
United S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)
19
M i t c h e l l 11)
20
United S t a t e s v. White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)
21
Solem v. B a r t l e t t , 465 U.S. 463 ( 1 9 8 4 ) U.S. Supreme Court
22
23 h e l d " ( a ) Only Congress c a n d i v e s t an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n of
24 i t s l a n d and d i m i n i s h i t s b o u n d a r i e s . But Congress must

25
26
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82]
? Â
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
7 Breach of Fiduciary Duty (as to Tejon/Sebastian Reservation

Ceded Map #311)
8
Article I Section 8 Clause 3, Acts of Congress, Fifth
9
10
Amendment 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 1291-1297, Indian
11 Nonintercourse Act 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 177
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
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
7 knows this Act does not exist.

8 Instead, Kern County cited a Supreme Court Case (U. S.
9
v. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO., 265 U.S. 472 (1924) about
10
Mexican Ranchos that the County of Kern's own attorney
11
said, during the televised broadcast, does not mention the
12
Reservation and does not make clear which Ranchos or
13
14
property the case is addressing. This 1924 case lacked a
15 Cause of Action and even the Justice said that he "assumedw
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
23 Tribes rights and they did not.
24 The 1924 case still has nothing to do with the

25 Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1). The Reservation
26
<kA0 72
(Rev. W82)
? Â
is an entity of its own, as it was set-aside by the

President of the United States through an Act of Congress
giving him that power. under the U.S. Constitution and
Court Rulings, Congress is the only Branch of Government

that can delineate, terminate, or dissolve an Indian
Reservation. The Court can make a ruling on an Act of
Congress to remove Tribal ownership but has no power to do
so on its own.
According to U.S. law the Tejon/Sebastian Indian
Reservation (EX. 1) is still Trust Property of the Tribe.

This has caused great injury to the Tribe and the
Department of Interior must restore the Tejon/Sebastian
Reservation to meet their Fiduciary Responsibility.
The Department of Interior knows this because they

issued the Kawaiisu Tribal Members over 32 Indian
Allotments (48 Stat. 985, 25 U.S.C. $3 465) and the Supreme
Court has ruled that the Issuance of Allotments indicates a
Government-to-Government relationship to a Federally
Recognized Tribe. Mattz v. Arnett 412 U.S. 481 (1973).
? a
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
7 June 24, 1924 I n d i a n C i t i z e n s h i p A c t
8 J a n u a r y 12, 1891, I 26 S t a t . , 712. T r u s t Continued

9
48 S t a t . 985, 25 U.S.C. Â 465
10
18 USC Sec. 1091 Genocide Law
11
18 uSC Sec. 1151 I n d i a n Country d e f i n e d
12
P u b l i c Law 85-31, May 16, 1957, S. 998, 7 1 S t a t . 29:
13
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
15 P u b l i c Law 86-634, J u l y 12, 1960, HR4386, 7 4 S t a t . 469:
16 I l l e g a l t o d e s t r o y , d e f a c e , o r remove boundary markers on

17 Indian Reservations o r t o Tresspass.
18
G e n e r a l Assembly R e s o l u t i o n 217 A (111) I n t e r n a t i o n a l B i l l
19
20
S t a t u t e s a t Large 24, 388-91 G e n e r a l A l l o t m e n t Act o r D a w e s
21
Act) 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
22
23
h o l d i n g s f o r t r i b a l members
24 ( 1 0 S t a t . 226 238) March 3, 1853 S e s s i o n 11, Thirty-Second
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
~ppropriated$250,000 "to defray the expense of subsisting

the Indians-and removing them to said reservations for
protection"
(10 Stat. 686, 699) March 3, 1855

Indian Tucker Act 28 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505
Indian Trust Doctrine
Trust at Common Law
Reserved Rights Doctrine

Congress Plenary Power
Fifth Amendment Trust property must not be taken without
"just compensation"
Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Waives
sovereign immunity of federal officials for actions

"seeking relief other than money damages" involving a
federal official's action or failure to act.
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. Secretary
of Interior must provide adequate accounting.

US v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983) (Mitchell 11)
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)
Tribes are "denominated domestic, dependant nations."
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
Â0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 ( 1 9 8 3 )
M i t c h e l l 11)
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 ( 2 0 0 3 )
Solem v . B a r t l e t t , 465 U.S. 463 ( 1 9 8 4 ) U.S. Supreme C o u r t
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
i t s l a n d and d i m i n i s h i t s b o u n d a r i e s . But Congress must
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
Breach of Fiduciary Duty (as to the Tribe's Indian Country
Ceded Map 4286)
18 USC Sec. 1151 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S.
Constitution, United States v. Washington (1974), Indian
Nonintercourse Act 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 177
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
Hidalgo 1848. This treaty was ratified by the Congress of

the United States and set into law.
The Library of Congress, Ceded Land Map Number 286
(Exhibit #2) shows our "1ndian Country", as it was
established in the Treaty the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon
signed at Camp Persifer Smith, June 10, 1851. The

Congressional Treaty Commission sent to California for that
purpose had the authority of Congress to make that Treaty

and to determine and set aside the area of "Indian
CountryM.
It is the responsibility of the Department of Interior
to maintain that the rights of our "Indian Country" are not

infringed upon. Department of Interior has violated their
Fiduciary Duty by not maintaining the Tribes rights in
Trust to a defined "Indian Country".
The injury caused by this action or inaction is that

it allows State Governments, Local Governments, and
Individuals to violate those rights guaranteed to the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon.
THIRD CLAIM AUTHORITIES
"lttz v. Arnett 412 U.S. 481 (1973)

Jaited S t a t e s v. Washington (1974)
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
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, Indian

5
6
Commerce Clause
7 June 24, 1924 Indian Citizenship Act

8 January 12, 1891, I 26 Stat., 712. Trust Continued
9
10
18 USC Sec. 1151 Indian Country defined
11
General Assembly Resolution 217 A (111) International Bill
12
of Human Rights, 10 December 1948
13
Statutes at Large 24, 388-91 General Allotment Act or Dawes

14
15 Act) divided up reservation lands into individual land

16 holdings for tribal members
17 (10 Stat. 226 238) March 3, 1853 Session 11, Thirty-Second
18
Congress established Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservaton and
19
Appropriated $250,000 "to defray the expense of subsisting
20
the Indians...and removing them to said reservations for
21
protection''
22
23 (10 Stat. 686, 699) March 3, 1855
24 Indian Tucker Act 28 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505

25 Indian Trust Doctrine
26
% A 0 72
(Rev. 8/81
1
Trust at Common Law
2
Reserved Rights Doctrine
3
Congress Plenary Power
4

5
6 j u s t compensation"
7 Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Waives

8 sovereign immunity of federal officials for actions
9 "seeking relief other than money damages" involving a
10
federal official's action or failure to act.
I1
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. Secretary
12
of Interior must provide adequate accounting.
13
14
US v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983) (Mitchell 11)
15 Cherokee v. Georgia, 30 U.S. ( 5 Pet.) 1 (1831)

16 Tribes are "denominated domestic, dependant nations."
17 Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
18
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)
19
Mitchell 11)
20
United States v. White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)
21
11
Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court
23 held "(a) Only Congress can divest an Indian reservation of

24 its land and diminish its boundaries. But Congress must
25
26
<Â072
(Rev. 8/82]
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
7 EIR Noncompliance with CEQA and NAGPRA

8
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,
15 Hater Code Section 12220
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
23 resources that meet the definitions of Pub. Res. Code
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
Dedicated on November 28, 1937. The TMV LLC development

5
6
fits all four criteria required for such consideration
7 Section 21084.1: a) associated with events from

8 California's historical past, b) associated with lives of
9
important persons in our past, c) embodies the distinctive
10
characteristics of a period, region and creative and
11
artistic values, and d) has yielded and is likely to yield
12
more information important to pre-Columbian history, pre-
13
14
California history and history and 21083.2 (without time
1s and cost limitations) also contains unique archeological
16 resources and graves 5097.98.

17 15064.5 The TMV LLC project will cause substantial
18
adverse change in the significance of the many historical
19
resource sites on the property including destruction,
20
relocation and alteration which will forever remove
21
22
eligibility for inclusion in California Register of
23 Historic Resources. Primary Cultural Intellectual Property
24 will be erased. The environmental effects will also be

25
26
Â0 72
(Rev.8/82)
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,
7 the mass graves (unmarked cemeteries) have not been

8 included in the survey and a comprehensive survey of the
9
property by the Most Likely Descendant has not taken place.
10
The County of Kern has not asked the project's Native
11
American Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants
12
to provide California CDIB Numbers, which is required to
13
14
verify their Lineal Descendancy to qualify them to be on
15 the site.
16 SB 610 The Water Supply Assessment for this project is

17 inadequate and does not take into consideration the
18
aboriginal water rights owned by the Kawaiisu ~ r i b eof
19
Tejon on all of the Ranchos (a right of occupancy was
20
guaranteed by Spain, Mexico and the United States forever)
21
that make up Tejon Ranch Company (United States v.
11
23 Washington (1974).
24 CEQA 21092 and Pub. Res. Code 5097.98 Inadequacy of

25 Notice to Lineal Descendants and Owners of the Indian
26
<\A072
(Rev. 8/82)
R e s e r v a t i o n o c c u r r e d . The T r i b e s h o u l d have been t r e a t e d a s
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
Kawaiisu T r i b e o f Tejon was n o t n o t i c e d a b o u t t h i s p r o j e c t
i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s o f Environmental review. No Early
C o n s u l t a t i o n o r Scoping p e r 15082 and 15083 t o o k p l a c e . 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
t o David Laughing H o r s e Robinson as a M o s t L i k e l y
Descendant i n I n d i a n Country r a n g i n g from Death V a l l e y t o
San Bernardino t o Ventura t o S a n t a Barbara t o Delano t o
B a k e r s f i e l d t o Sherman P a s s and back a c r o s s t h e Coso and
Panamint Mountains. Furthermore, as o n e of t h e t r i b e s h e l d
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
i n rises t o e t h n o c i d e and genocide t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s and
c o n c e r n s o f t h e Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon would b e i g n o r e d on
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
a b o r i g i n a l c l a i m t o t h e p r o p e r t y was excluded from t h a t
m a i l i n g list. To make m a t t e r s worse, t h e Tribe d i d n o t

Kawaiisu Tribe of v. Department of Interior and
r e c e i v e t h e E I R and any p l a n n i n g documents u n t i l t h e end of
t h e October 5, 2009 h e a r i n g , a f t e r t h e v o t e had been t a k e n .
I n t h e T r i b e s letter t o t h e c o u n t y dated September 28,
2009 t h e T r i b e alerted Kern County t h a t t h e County needed
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
were approving a p r o j e c t on F e d e r a l Land, o u t s i d e of t h e i r
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
A p p l i c a n t had n o t p r o v i d e d such a document ( s i n c e it does
n o t e x i s t ) b u t t h e County v o t e d t o approve t h e Project
anyway. T h i s development h a s now been approved on F e d e r a l
I n d i a n T r u s t Land.
During t h e O c t . 5, 2009, P u b l i c Testimony o t h e r local
N a t i v e Americans i n d i c a t e d t h a t g r a v e s i t e s had been
d e s t r o y e d and scattered on t h e Tejon Ranch P r o p e r t y some
y e a r s b e f o r e and t h e y had been c o n t a c t e d t o assess t h e

19
s i t e . T h i s w a s t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t t h e Kawaiisu T r i b e o f
20
Tejon had h e a r d a b o u t it and even t h e Lead Kern County
21
P l a n n e r acknowledged t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t had o c c u r r e d . No one
--
'I?
23 g a v e n o t i c e t o t h e Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon o r t h e Coroner
24 when t h i s v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d . P u b l i c Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C.

25 3001 e t seq. P u b l i c Law 86-634, July 1 2 , 1960, HR4386, 74
26
Stat. 469: Illegal to destroy, deface, or remove boundary

markers on Indian Reservations or to tresspass.
21092, 21104 The Trustee for the Kawaiisu Tribe of
Tejon, the Department of Interior, was not noticed about
the Project being developed on Federal Lands, the first
Indian Reservation in California. The Department of
Interior is Trustee representing Kawaiisu Tribal interests
in this project and for the required HEPA review.
Pub. Res. Code Section 21083 The State Clearinghouse
in concert with a Metropolitan area council of governments
did not review the EIR which they should have because this
project meets five of the criteria: Changes the General
Plan, will cause significant environmental effects such as
traffic, air quality and climate change, will result in the
cancellation of Williamson Act acreage, will take Water
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (WCS 12220) and
substantially affects sensitive and endangered wildlife
habitat (Section 15380). It is a project that affects an
Indian Reservation and it is a project that is placed in an
earthquake zone that in the 1850's shook for 30 days
straight.
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
7 comprehensive zoning changes and general plan approvals

8 based on information contained in the various environmental
9
review documents submitted by Tejon Ranch Company, Tejon
10
Mountain Village LLC and Kern County Planning. This
11
Complaint is timely filed within the 30 day filing
12
requirement for public agency decisions. Furthermore, some
13
14
of the land is even still under the Williamson Act for two
15 more years and is being included in the zoning and General

16 Plan overhaul, even though that technically cannot happen.
17
Foremost, the land in contention has been and is still open
18
space, and has been that way since before Europeans arrived
19
in this country.
20
CEQA Section 21177(15112 (C)(5)) The Tribe exhausted
21
it's administrative remedies by delivering a 50 page
"11
23 hindered document to the Planning Department on August 13,

24 2009, five weeks before the Kern County Planning Commission
25 met on the project. In that document the Tribe lodged its
26
<Â072
(Rev. 8/82)
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
p r o j e c t should n o t b e approved. Among t h e c o n t e n t i o n s w e r 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
Most L i k e l y Descendant r e g u l a t i o n s had been ignored and
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
Land, t h e I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n of t h e Kawaiisu Tribe of
Tejon. The T r i b e d e l i v e r e d t h e document by way of t h e
P u b l i c Comment p e r i o d d u r i n g a Planning Commission Hearing
and gave t h e C l e r k a u d i b l y t h e T r i b e s Mailing Address* The
Planning Department d i d n o t f o l l o w through and m a i l a copy
of t h e E I R and planning documents f o r t h e p r o j e c t t o t h e
T r i b e . The EIR should have been mailed t o t h e T r i b e , and a
walking s u r v e y of t h e a c r e a g e should have been scheduled
and t h e review p e r i o d extended f o r 90 days as r e q u e s t e d .
CEQA S e c t i o n 21177 The T r i b e a d d i t i o n a l l y exhausted
i t ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies by f i l i n g a n o t h e r l e t t e r and
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
h e a r i n g and a p p e a r i n g i n p e r s o n and s u b m i t t i n g one more
w r i t t e n r e c o r d o f t h e T r i b a l comments on October 5, 2009.
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
S i t e s on t h e p r o p e r t y , Host L i k e l y Descendant Notice and

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.
16 21157.6 V i o l a t i o n of E I R f i v e y e a r l i m i t ; Kern County

17 approved t h e EIR f o r t h i r t y y e a r s .
18
County of Kern, State of California is using Native
19
American Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants
20
for Kern County EIR/EIS projects who do not hold a
21
California Certified Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB)

--
ff
23 certificate issued by the Department of Interior and do not

24 meet the legal geneology requirements to serve in the
25 official capacities for CEQA and NAGPRA. This violation
26
%A0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
makes the Cultural Resources portion of the TMV LLC EIR

null and void.
County of Kern is not in compliance with the EIR legal
Standards for the treatment of Sacred Sites and Indigenous
Intellectual Property. The County's Cultural Resources

treatment in the TMV LLC EIR rises to Genocide and
Ethnocide. Sacred Sites are equal to Intellectual Property
for Indigenous Peoples and are to be completely avoided and

not covered with dirt, textile matting or erased from
existence in any way. The EIR is not in compliance with

legal standards for Cemetery remains and Indigenous remains
of a Federally Recognized Tribe on a Federal Indian

Reservation. Applicant does "not" own the "remains" of the
Kawaiisu Tribal people or the artifacts found in and around
the graves, that the sum of those items will be repatriated
to the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon when discovered. The County

of Kern must remove the phrase about Applicant "owning"
Native American graves and archaeological materials.
104 STAT. 3048, Public Law 101-601
Public Law 86-634, July 12, 1960, HR4386, 74 Stat. 469

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
7 through 18 set forth in the SUMMARY.

8 Defendant Kern County discriminated against the
9
Kawaiisu Tribe by denying, on account of religion, equal
10
protection under the law.
11
Many of the rights Tejon Ranch Corporation and TMV LLC
12
enjoy today in the State of California and the United
13
14
States derive from the same Fourteenth Amendment yet those
15 two Corporations and an assortment of Not-for-Profit

16 Corporations were deferred to and treated preferentially
17 rather than treated equally in the project approval and
18
CEQA process.
19
In the case of meeting the standard for equal
20
protection when undertaking a resort development as wide
21
reaching as the development in question, the public agency,
22
23 in this case Lead Agency Kern County, must show no
24 favoritism. The public agency must exhaustively research,

25
26
U 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
?
Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and
give Notice, deliver documentation and give thirty day

revue to all interested parties equally.
In this case, adjacent property owners, many ~gencies
and Corporations were noticed about the development and
brought in for consultation. The Kawaiisu Tribe was not
brought in as a consultant. The Kawaiisu Tribe did not

receive the notices required under CEQA and NAGPRA. The
Kawaiisu Tribe did not get a thirty day review of the CEQA
EIR document and in fact the Kawaiisu Tribe was only
delivered the EIR and supporting documents at the October
5 , 2 0 0 9 Board of Supervisors meeting, after the vote by the
Board of Supervisors had occurred, even though the Tribe
had alerted the Kern County Planning Department and Kern

County Planning Commission to the oversight in person and
by letter on August 13, 2 0 0 9 .

By omitting the Kawaiisu Tribe from Notice,
Consultation and 3 0 day review of the EIR, Defendant Kern

County "is enforcingw the unequal treatment of the Kawaiisu
Tribe when prospective development occurs on their
aboriginal lands.
That the Tribe has established a long history with the
property is not in question: the Tribes Aboriginal claim to

Kawaiisu Tribe ?
v. Department of Interior and Coun of Kern, CA
the property was acknowledged by Spain and reinforced by

the Diseno produced by Father Francisco Garces. When Mexico
replaced Spain, all Ranchos issued for the same territory

included a right of habitation clause. When the United
States replaced Mexico, the US Government made a Treaty
(June 10, 1851) with the Kawaiisu Tribe that was signed on
the property at Camp Persifer Smith. When the United States
established Indian Reservations in California, the first

Indian Reservation in the State of California was on the
property in question and the Kawaiisu Tribe were gathered

there by California Volunteers using the California Indian
Slavery law of April 22, 1850 (Chapter 133, Statutes of
California, An Act for the Government and Protection of
Indians). When the Civil War ravaged the Country, in 1863

California Volunteers gathered hundreds of Kawaiisu in the
Owens Valley, Coso and Panamint Mountains, Mohave Desert
and Kern River Valley and marched the Kawaiisu to Sebastian

Tejon Indian Reservation and imprisoned Tribal members
there using the California Indian Slavery Law.
When the Kawaiisu Tribe found out by accident that
defendants were moving forward on a development project on
the Tribes Aboriginal and Reservation land, the Kawaiisu

1
Tribe produced a ten minute video to provide an easy to
-7
understand historical summary of the property and the

3
Kawaiisu Tribal claim to the property and posted it on the
4
internet on September 30, 2009.

5
6 Defendant retaliated in two ways that Plaintiff knows
7 of: 1) by calling Plaintiff, Chairman David Laughing Horse

8 robin son"^ place of work, the California State University,
9
Bakersfield and trying to get him fired. Additionally, on
10
Thursday, October 1, 2009, a Kern County Planning
11
Department employee was quoted in the primary County paper
12
(EXHIBIT #5) as follows saying, "the land was never a
13
14
formal reservation for the Kawaiisu tribe but only a shared
15 habitation area for several tribes of native people." By

16 these actions Defendants attempted to suppress the Kawaiisu
17 Tribes free exercise and free speech rights and not treat
18
the Tribe equally as an interested Agency or Corporation.
19
The Kawaiisu Tribe has several thousand years of
20
21
expertise as a Government - to - Government agency and
consultant on the Cultural Resources on their aboriginal
22
23 lands. Defendants recurring policy of not noticing the

24 Kawaiisu Tribe about projects on the Tribe's aboriginal
25 land exhibits prejudice and demonstrates an ethnocentric
26
QAO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
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
It should be noted that testimony at the Oct. 5, 2009

5
6
hearing indicated that four of the five Kern County
7 Supervisors received political donations from Tejon Ranch

8 during the project development process.
9
The undisputed material facts demonstrate that
10
Defendants have violated the Equal Protection clause of the
11
Fourteenth Amendment by impinging on Plaintiff's free
12
exercise and free speech rights and by intentionally
13
14
discriminating against the Tribe because of the Tribe's
15 religion and ethnicity.

16 FIFTH CLAIM AUTHORITIES
17 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], United
18
States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral
19
on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner,
20
is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the
21
Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Stanley Matthews wrote:
it
23 "These provisions are universal in their application, to
24 all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without

25 regard to any differences of race, of color, or of
26
fsA0 72
(Rev.8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe
a
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 . "
15 S h e l l e y v. K r a e m e r , 334 U.S. 1, ( 1 9 4 8 ) The C o u r t found
16 t h a t , although a discriminatory p r i v a t e contract could not

17 v i o l a t e t h e Equal P r o t e c t i o n Clause, t h e c o u r t s '
18
enforcement of such a c o n t r a c t could: a f t e r a l l , because
19
t h e c o u r t s w e r e p a r t o f t h e state.
20
(CEQ), 40 C.F.R. p t s . 1500-1508. CEQ r e g u l a t i o n s
21
r e q u i r e a g e n c i e s t o c o n t a c t I n d i a n t r i b e s and p r o v i d e
--
77
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)
"on a reservation" an Indian tribe, by agreement with the

lead federal agency, may become a cooperating agency and
have a direct role in the preparation of the EIS. 40
C.F.R. Â§ 1501.6, 1508.5.Scoping - The lead agency must
invite "any affected Indian tribe" to participate in the
scoping process for an EIS. Id. Â 1501.7.Commenting on an

EIS - The lead agency must invite comments on a draft EIS
from Indian tribes "when the effects may be on a

reservation." Id. Â 1503.1(a)(2).Environmental
consequences - When an agency prepares an EIS for a
proposed action, the analysis of environmental consequences
in the EIS must include discussions of possible conflicts
between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal,

regional, State, and local (and in the case of a
reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and
controls for the area concerned. Id. Â 1502.16(c).Public
involvement - Whenever an agency providespublic notice of a

NEPA-related hearing, public meeting, or the availability
of environmental documents, the notice shall include notice
to Indian tribes "when effects may occur on reservation^.^^
Id. Â 1506.6(b)(3). In addition, if the proposed federal

agency action is in response to an action planned by a
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
w i t h s t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c i e s and I n d i a n t r i b e s . Id. Â
1501.2(d), T h i s r e q u i r e m e n t a p p l i e s whether NEPA
compliance i n v o l v e s a n EIS o r and EA and FONSI.
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
June 24, 1924 I n d i a n C i t i z e n s h i p A c t
January 12, 1891, I 26 S t a t . , 712. T r u s t Continued
18 USC S e c . 1091 Genocide Law
18 USC Sec. 1151 I n d i a n Country d e f i n e d
G e n e r a l Assembly R e s o l u t i o n 217 A (111) I n t e r n a t i o n a l B i l l
Mattz v. A r n e t t 412 U.S. 481 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
S t a t u t e s a t Large 24, 388-91 G e n e r a l A l l o t m e n t Act o r D a w e s
A c t ) divided up r e s e r v a t i o n lands i n t o i n d i v i d u a l land
h o l d i n g s f o r t r i b a l members
( 1 0 S t a t . 226 238) March 3 , 1853 S e s s i o n 11, Thirty-Second
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
t h e Indians-and removing them t o s a i d r e s e r v a t i o n s f o r
protection"
( 1 0 S t a t . 686, 699) March 3, 1855
I n d i a n Tucker A c t 28 U.S.C. Sub. S e c . 1505
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
" s e e k i n g r e l i e f o t h e r t h a n money damages" i n v o l v i n g a
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.
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
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 .
US v . M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( M i t c h e l l 11)
Cherokee N a t i o n v . G e o r g i a , 30 U.S. ( 5 P e t . ) 1 (1831)
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 . "
Worcester v. G e o r g i a , 3 1 U.S. ( 6 P e t . ) 515 ( 1 8 3 2 )

9
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
Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court

5
6
held "(a) Only Congress can divest an Indian reservation of
7 its land and diminish its boundaries. But Congress must

8 clearly evince an intent to change boundaries before
9
diminishment will be found."
10
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
19 Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon in an equal manner to other

20 historic federally-recognized Tribes in the United States.
21 The Department of Interior violated their
--
??
Constitutional Responsibilities by listing other Tribes as
23
Historic Federally-Recognized Tribes and not listing the
24
25
26
-0 72
(Rev.8\82)
Q
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon as an Historic Federally-Recognized
Tribe, with all the protections, rights, and services.
The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon is forced to bring this
case forward when it is the legal, fundamental

responsibility of the Department of Interior set forth by
the U.S. Congress as a fiduciary responsibility. In this
gross negligence by the Department of Interior, the

Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon has experienced loss of life,
education, health services, religious freedom and has to
act as its own legal trustee.

The injury to the Tribe includes the deliberate
destruction, use without permission, and unlawful claim of
the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's Intellectual Property Rights.
Our paintings and calendar sites are defaced and published

without our permission.
The Tribe is not being noticed for Repatriation.
NAGPRA regulations are not applied to our Tribe because of
the Department of Interior's actions. Even though our

75,000 acre Te]on/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1 - Map
#311) was reduced to 25,000 acres, we have not been given
just compensation as guaranteed under the 5 Amendment.

When t h e County o f Kern h i r e s N a t i v e American
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
Kern County f o r t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s do n o t have C a l i f o r n i a
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 .
To make i s w o r s e , t h e County o f Kern w r i t e s i n t h e i r
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.
104 STAT. 3048, P u b l i c Law 101-601
The Department o f I n t e r i o r i s g u i l t y o f Genocide,
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
due p r o c e s s . The Kawaiisu T r i b e o f T e j o n n e e d s h o u s i n g f o r
o u r homeless t r i b a l members, m e n t a l h e a l t h and r e g u l a r
h e a l t h care, a d r u g and a l c o h o l a b u s e program and a TANF
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
e d u c a t i o n . W e have a h i g h r a t e o f d y s l e x i a which l e a d s many
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.
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
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
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
23 Mattz v. Arnett 412 U.S. 481 (1973).
24
25
26
Â0 72
(Rev. 8182)
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
6 Congress established Tejon/Stebastian Indian Reservaton and
7 Appropriated $250,000 "to defray the expense of subsisting

8 the Indians...and removing them to said reservations for
9
protection"
10
(10 Stat. 686, 699) March 3, 1855
11
United S t a t e s v. Washington ( 1 9 7 4 )
12
Indian Tucker Act 28 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505
13
14
Indian Trust Doctrine
15 Trust at Common Law

16 Reserved Rights Doctrine
17 Congress Plenary Power
18
19
'just compensationw
20
Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Waives
21
sovereign immunity of federal officials for actions
22
23 "seeking relief other than money damages" involving a
24 federal official's action or failure to act.

25
26
% A 0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
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
Cherokee N a t i o n v . G e o r g i a , 30 U.S. ( 5 P e t . ) 1 (1831)

5
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 . "
7 Worcester v . G e o r g i a , 3 1 U.S. ( 6 P e t . ) 515 ( 1 8 3 2 )

8 U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 ( 1 9 8 3 )
9
M i t c h e l l 11)
10
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . White ~ o u n t a i nApache 537 U.S. 465 ( 2 0 0 3 )
11
Solem v. B a r t l e t t , 465 U.S. 463 ( 1 9 8 4 ) U.S. Supreme C o u r t
12
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
13
i t s l a n d and d i m i n i s h i t s b o u n d a r i e s . But Congress must

14
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
23 r e s e r v a t i o n " a n I n d i a n t r i b e , b y agreement w i t h t h e lead
24 federal agency, may become a c o o p e r a t i n g agency and have a

25 direct r o l e i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e EIS. 40 C.F.R. Â§
26
%A072
(Rev. U82)
Kawaiisu Tribe of tfbn v. Department of Interior and ~ o u m em,
f CA
1501.6, 1508.5.Scoping - The l e a d agency must i n v i t e "any
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
p r o c e s s for a n EIS. Id. Â 1501.7.Commenting on an E I S -
The l e a d agency must i n v i t e comments on a d r a f t E I S f r o m
I n d i a n t r i b e s "when t h e e f f e c t s may be on a r e s e r v a t i o n . "
Id. Â 1503.l(a)(2).Environmental consequences - When an
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
of environmental consequences i n t h e EIS must i n c l u d e
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
u s e p l a n s , p o l i c i e s and c o n t r o l s f o r t h e area concerned.
Id. Â 1 5 0 2 . 1 6 ( c ) . P u b l i c involvement - Whenever a n agency
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
meeting, o r t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f environmental documents,
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
e f f e c t s may o c c u r on r e s e r v a t i o n s . " Id. Â 1 5 0 6 . 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) . I n
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-
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 w i t h state and

Kawaiisu Tribe of
a
local agencies and Indian tribes. Id. Â 1501.2(d). This
requirement applies whether NEPA compliance involves an EIS

or and EA and FONSI.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
Grant an injunction or stay prohibiting the TMV LLC
Development Project from being carried out until the claims
of this case are determined. Hecton v. People of the State
of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 653
Order Department of Interior (DOI) to reaffirm formal
recognition of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon, by publishing
the Tribes name in the Federal Register as an Indian Entity
Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United
States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Order DO1 to include in
the Federal Register an acknowledgment that an
administrative oversight had occurred and that the Kawaiisu
Tribe of Tejon shall be considered a Historic Federally-
Recognized Tribe and shall be entitled to the privileges

and immunities available to other federally-recognized
historic tribes by virtue of their government-to-government
relationship with the United States. Order DO1 to produce

9 *
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,
15 1957, S. 998, 71 Stat. 29)
16 Order DO1 to restore to Trust status the Kawaiisu

17 allotments that were sold without approval and other
18
illegal means of transfer of Tribal Indian land.
19
Order DO1 to provide an accounting of accrued revenues
20
from resources extracted from the Tejon/Sebastian Indian
21
Reservation (oil, minerals, water, agricultural, leases).
22
23 Order DO1 to provide compensation for services not
24 rendered by the BIA $150,000,000.

25
26
<Â072
(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
Order DO1 to provide compensation for pain and

5
6
suffering $3,000,000,000.
7 Order County of Kern, State of California to establish

8 and incorporate a policy into their County General Plan and
9 County Statutes requiring that all Native American
10
Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants working
11
on Kern County projects must present a California Certified
12
Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) certificate issued by the
13
Department of Interior and registered with the National
14
15 Parks Service and Native American Heritage Commission.
16 Order DO1 to remove jurisdiction from the Native

17 American Heritage Commission to determine California Most
18
Likely Descendants and return that jurisdiction to the
19
National Parks Service. Require DO1 to work with the
20
National Parks Service to establish and incorporate a
21
policy requiring all California Native American
22
23 Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants working
24 on California projects to present a California Certified

25 Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) certificate from the DOI.
26
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Kawaiisu Tribe of
Â
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
7 maintains the required five (of nine) California ~ndianson

8 the Commission, verified by California CDIB at time of
9 nomination.
10
Order County of Kern to adopt the Federal Standards
11
for the treatment of Sacred Sites and Indigenous
12
Intellectual Property; that Sacred Sites are equal to
13
14
Intellectual Property and are to be completely avoided and
15 not covered with dirt or textile matting. That the County
16 of Kern acknowledge, in writing, that the Tejon Mountain

17 Village Applicant does "not" own the "remainsffof the
18
Kawaiisu Tribal people or the artifacts found in and around
19
the graves, that the total of those items will be
20
repatriated to the Tribe when discovered. Order that County
21
of Kern will revise the Tejon Mountain Village EIR and also
22
23 adopt a County-wide policy adopting new procedures.
24 Order a Federal Court Review of the proceedings of the

25 1924 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. case as it pertains to the
26
-0 72
(Rev. 8/82)
Â 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
California Land Claims Commission and the five rancho

5
6 disenos presented that make up Tejon Ranch.
8 Dated: November 8, 2009 Respectfully Submitted,

9
10
11
12 c David Laughing Horse Robinson

13 P.O. Box 1547
14
Kernville, CA 93238
Telephone: (661) 378-1085
15
Attorney for Plaintiff, Pro Se
16 Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon
17
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
24 EX. 5: Bakersfield Californian article, Oct. 1, 2009

25 EX. 6: 1905 Handbook of American Indians Cover Page
26
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
6 EX. 11: Reservation Historical Landmark # I 3 3
7 EX. 1 2 : March 3, 1853 Reservation Approved
8 EX. 13: Oct. 1 9 , 1 8 5 7 Congressional Globe-Five Reservations

9
EX. 1 4 : Letter to Planning Department August 1 3 , 2 0 0 9
10
EX. 1 5 : Letter to Board of Supervisors September 2 8 , 2 0 0 9
11
EX. 1 6 : Letter/Statement read at BOS hearing Oct. 5, 2 0 0 9
12
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, '
Kawaiisu. The most v

sion of the Ute-Chemehu
vision of the Shoshonea~
occupy an isolated area i
the ~Ghachapirnta., Cal.,
the w. side around Paiul
valleys of Walker basin a
Kelso crs. as far s. as Teh
Cobajais.-Garc6s (1776), Diary
Ibid., 304, 445. Covaai.-Ke
Compenc?., 510, 1878. &ah-wi
Science, SIX. 916, June 15,1904. M=A~u.--L- -
her, inf'n, 1905 (Yokuts name). KG-wY-3- --

Powers in Cont. N. A. Ethnol., in, 393, 1:
kuts name). Kawishm.-Kroeber. inf'n. - ; Y
batulabal name). Kow-6'-sah.-S

Kubakhye.-Kroeber, inf'n, 1905 (I
Xewoof-a$.-Merriam, op.cit. (=* p
Colteches.-Garcte, op. cit., 295, 3"- v wa
Mariposa people). Ta-hi-cha-pa-han-na.-
in Cent. N. A. Ethnol., 111, 393. 1877 (c
around m t ns. of same name). Ta-hichp'.
(so called by Kern r. people).
Kawaika. A ruined pueblo, att
bv the Hopi to t h e Kawaika p(
name also applied bv them to the- T-Z?
-4; T,.-.,-- n7 n<- -
- -
k
Â¥ 1 .
t
EX. 4
BY JAMES BURGER
C a U f d a n s t d t writer
[email protected]
David laughing Horse Robinson, an elder of the Kawaiisu

tribe of Native Americans, has launched a unique challenge
to the controversialTejon Mountain Viage project on the
eve of a critical hearing before the Kern County Board of
Su ervisors.
Eobinson,who works as an instructionaltechnician in5
the art d e p m e n t at CAI State Bakersfield, claimsTejori
.
Ranch does not own the land on the east side of Intentate 5
near F d c r Parktvhe~the company
proposing to buildTejon
- .and its partner are
MountainVdlage. '
It is m e d , he state in '
How- To Go- . ,
-',
ayoumbe dm & & 1
'
The Board of Supe~isors
1
len *ngthe pmjmt, by will meet on the Tejon
the%waiisu tnbe and project 9 a.m. Monday at
tvas stolen hom it in the ,the County Administrative
early years of California's ! Center, lll5 Truxtun Ave. in ,
Weas astate. Bakersfield.
.-'*.Theffityajisu pibe.- - - -. +..
F I
has clear ownership of *

tbeTejon-Sebastianreservation," Robinson states in the
\id=
Since there has been no action by Con- to terminate
the msmation or de-list U~etribe,the land is mmed by the
X a t k Americans, he says.
hrelei Watt, special projects chief for the Kern County
IWinine De artment, said the land ms n e w a formal
&n
?
IiStxVaQOn or the Katvaiisu tribe but o d a shared habita-
I!"
for several tribesof native peop c.
Tejon3ownership of the property has not been chal-
lmgeci by native groups previously, she said, and munty
d~ t theh Nahve American Heritage Commissionin
Saxamento did not reveal evidence sup oning Robinson.
-Mr.h u f u n g Horse has never bmu t this m our atten-
tion at any p m o u s ) time," Oviatt saitfkfehave no a$-'
;' den= that his claims ate mmct."
But thoseclahs, she said, will be given due mnsideration
as the Board of Supervisors meets Monday to debare a p s -
sible approval forTejon Mountainviage, a 5,082-ap t -
ed,private deveiopment on 26,417 a c m in the mountam
1 between Bakersfield and h s An eles.
1 "We w3l respectfully take Mr. faupg
comments to the board: (Matt sai
~ o r s ~e o b h m n ' s
HANDBOOK
ERICA
NORTH O F MEXICO
FREDERICK W E B B HODGE,
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
OF AMERICANETHNOLOGY,
BUXEAU
D. C., J d y I, 1905,
Wiash7,'71,yt0,77,
SIR:I have t h honor
~ to submit herewith the manuscript of Bulletin
30 of the Bui*cau of American Ethtlologj?, entitled '' Handbook of
A%merica~~ lnclia11s," which has been in preparation for a number of
ye.ars and has been cou~pletedf o r publication under the editorsllip
of &h-F. IV..Hodge. The Hindbook contains a descriptive list of
the stocks, confederacies, tribes, tribal divisions, and settlements north
of hfexico, accompanied Gith the variou$ 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
California State Military Department
The California State Military Museum

Miiitary Heritage
Preserving Cal~orniuts
Historic California Posts, Stations and Airfields

Camp Persifer F. Smith
A temporary camp established on I 0 June 1851 for the purpose of signing a treaty (shown below)
with several Native American tribes in the area of what is the southern San Joaquin Valley.
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.
G.W. BARBOUR. [SEAL.]

Texon:
Page 2 of 4
9 -2
a
Camp Perstfer F. Smith
VINCENTE, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

CHICO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
PABLO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
JOSE ANTONIO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
MARTIN, his x mark. [SEAL.]
FRANCISCO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
8
Castake:
RAFAEL, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

MANUEL, his x mark. [SEAL.]
1 San Imirio:
JOSE MARIA, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
I uvas:
~ ANTONIO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
1 Carises:
RAYMUNDO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
JUAN, his x mark. [SEAL.]
JUAN DE DIOS, his x mark. [SEAL.]
1 Buena Vista:
~ APOLONIO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
JOAQUIN, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

EMITERIO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]
NICOLAS, his x mark. [SEAL.]
BENANCIO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
URBANO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

OLORICO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
JOSE, his x mark, chief. [SEAL,]

MARIANO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
Page 3 of 4
4- 3
Camp Persffer F. Smith
To-ci-a:
FELIPPE, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

PEDRO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
URBANO, his x mark. [SEAL.]
FRANCISCO, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

TOMAS, his x mark. [SEAL.]
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
238 T,~RTYRTY-SECONCONGRESS. Sesa. 11. Cn. 104. 1853.

For twCD<7-s~ndof twenty-ssven i n s h h ~ n h for'
, 6iX ngrieuiinritta,
purcliaso of ox* ploughs, nod other implcmcnta, atipulnKd in tlio Hfth
VoL riL p. 8
n of the treaty of the flIUxnth of September, eighteen hundred and
thirty-two, two t h o ~ fivehundred
d dollars;
9 F o r twcoty-eccond of twenty-won hataloicnts for pay of two physi-
Voi.'ia. p.m. cians, ttipulaled in tho treaty of the fifteenth of September, cightwn
hundred and thirty-two, four hundred dollnm ;
For ink& on ono million ono hundred thousand dollars, at fivo par
Vol. vti. p a mm,dp&ted i n tho fourth snide of the treaty of the first of Nu-
wanbcr, d g h w hundred and thirty-aevcn, fifty-five thousand dollare ;
For interest on eighty-five thousand dollars at lire per centurn, ~ t i l ~ i l *
Vol ix. pk 678. (cd jn tho fourth articio of the treaty of the thirteenth of October,
eighteÃ§ hundred and forty-six, four thousnnd two hundred and fifty
dollars.
T w loJtiua. 2 k A&ff~.- Fw compensation to t hrco special Agouts and four
wniÃˆ tnttp- Interpreters for the Indian tribes of Tcsss, and for the purchao of pre-
S!Pmdp t h i h~~ ~ i~isow,
d~ the sum of tfaita t110~mnddei-
lara may bo used in snch manner na (ho Secretary of tho Interior may
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?. âte,, 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 IiuodrÃ§ 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 mÃ§tfire 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
'
*Ãˆ 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
Thirty-second Congress, Session 11. Approved March 3,1853.
http:/ /www.angelfire.com/nt2/kawaiisu/tejonrese~atton.html Page 2 of 5
<^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)
THIWY-SECOSD CONGRESS. SESS.IT. CH. 139. 1853. 230

u r p m of carrying into cflcct the provisions of this section, the tam of
f thouund d o l t m h hereby appropriatri, ont of any iiwncp in die
T-ury not o l h e r w h npproprinied.
$KC. 8. And. 6tt it fwrtA~renacted, That no part of tho oppropriathna ft- enb to
herein mde, or that may hewiftor hc mado, for h a benefit of my Indian,
o r tribe, or part of a tribe of Indium,shall be paid to any attoroey or
agent of each Indian, o r tribe, o r part of a tTibe, but &hailin every we
be (Wd directly to tho Indim or I n d i n n ~lbcnuclvcs to whom i t hall bo
fine, or to the iribo o r pan. of n tribe per c+ta, unless Ibc imperious
interest of h e Jinlinn o r Indians o r some tremy stipulation shall re uirc
ilia payment to bo made ~lberwiae,under the ~ p w i n idireelion of llm
President; nor shall tho 'Rxecutiw branch of the Gorernmcnt now o r Crtntnetiwith
licrcal'w recognize any contract between any Indino, or tribe, or part of matÃn<* *
n iribe, ond niiy attomcy or ngcnt far tho proetcotioti or any claim c ~ l z e d .
against any of tho Departmcntfl of the Government; and !!at thu bum
of ~ i hundred
x and eighty-two dollar? lie up rupriaicd,out of any m n c y s
1 1 tliu T ~ a s o r y
MI otherwise appropriate^ 10 enable ibo Comiiiissiwcr
of Indian Maire to pay tlie nmouni due ihe l e p l representatives of
Armce, a CChcrokee, in accordance with tho recotninendruinn of tlio Se-
cretnry of the Interior and the f~immissionftrof Indian Affnira.
Sno. 4. And he if furthur mu.ctmf, f l i n t if any of&ter who is or mny Thklog d p ( i
liercfiftar li* charged 4 t l i the payment of any of tho nppropridiona n i ~ d e& , ~ E ~ m '
by thia or tiny oilier net of Gnigrw iflioll nay tu nor do*, o r other em- bblifld~l~i)~
p l o p 6 nf ilic Uni~edStntcs, n EUID Iftss than that p v i d e i l by liiw, nnd t>Ã‡"ltmt
require such cm loye6 to receipt o r give voucher for on nmount greater
thnn tbnt iichialfy pnid to nod r e v i v a i by him, inch officer *us acting
fihttll bo deemed guilty of embcwlcmont, shall be h a d in a sum double P d y .
ttio aroount'u) withheld from any employed of h c r n m e n t , and shall bo
impriioneÃ§ for the term of two years, nod may ba prosecuted and
punished in un court uf tho United Stuns, having jstriBAittion for tho
,rial of inch olfeiicoa, in (lie d a l r k t where mch ofPince abnll be coin-
m'ttied.
APP~OYED, March 8, 1853.
CHAP. CSXXIX. -
An dd ~/i(AtTVwupCTtottlXl^/A)OfcifÃ‡r
$ m g z f dm'y
~ (k fuel imrashtyt!ÃÎtuUfS
Marcha,IS&a.
.Dc i t e n d fy the Senate and of h%prtfeatatiwof the United

Slulei of Jfnurica in C' u~~~ lht the; folhwing iuras bo ~pixopria~aa).
r
and the same am hereby appropriated, to be id out of miy tflonisy in
tke Treasury not otherwiic appropriated, for t e p r onding tlittliirtii~h
of June, ona thousand eight hundred and Gfty-foot :
F o r U-inspwtation of tho mails from New York to Liverpool a d back, L t ~ i y w *
eight huatlrcd lud fidy-eight thousand dollars;
nation of tho mails from H a w Yo* to Xcw Orleans, CbacucB,&t.
T
Charleston, ,'ivoiic.ih, linvana, and Chngres, and back, two hundred mit
ninety thousand dollars ;
F o r transportnilon of tlio mails from Panama to Cnlifftmia find Ore- ~ a l l / a l asail
gon, nnr<hack, t h m hunrlred and forty-oight iboafaod two hundred and Ortie~m
fifty dollar* ;
Pot carrying e a t the contftijtt &&red into by the Post-Offica Depart- Vwn Crn*.
mciit uudcr ibe luw pujaed ut the laat m s i o n of Congress, eatfltflistiing n
tri-monthly mail by steam vessels between Now Orleans and Vcm Crux,
via Tarnpico, (evenly thousand dollars.
S~:C.2- And &T i~further ma&, Thai the folbwing mias ba and tho
unmc a r e hereby, appropriated for the acnviceof the Post-Offioc Depart-
ment, for the year ending tho thirtieth of June, one thousand eight, liun-
drcd and fifty-four, out of nny mmieye XB the Tretijury aria;% from !tic
Page 3 of 5
1 2 - & -
.. . .
'0 .--..-
. .. - .as- --a, .* . - Ã
which every effort is being; made to prevent.

V i v reservations
~ i n till have been established,
eleven thousand two hundred &d thirty-nine In-

(lions have been colonized, nod are i n course of
being successfully trained to habits of industry.
From the re-prcscntiaions of the superin tenden t ,
~ i ~ i tmust
'e be a marked difference in tlie habits
nÃ§ condition o f those who have settled on the
rcscrvu~~ions and those who have not yet submit-
ted themselves to tins beneficent plan for tlicir
ireserviition and improvement. A most repre-
Iiensiblc practice has prcv:iilcd to some e.xtent in
Ctiliforniii of kidnapping Indian children anti sell-
ii:~g
Ã
idem for *servants. This. .practice has been
, 1 .
-
To:
a
Kern County Planning Department
2700 M street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attn: Craig M. Murphy, Supervising Planner
Re: Tejon Mountain Village, LLC (PP06201)

File number: GPA #1, Map #218 and 218R; GPA #7, Map #219; GPA #1, Map
#235 and 236; GPA #lo, Map # 237; GPA #2, Map #237-26; GPA #6,
Map 237-34; GPA #9, Map #254 ZCC # I , Map #218 and 218R; ZCC #12,
Map #219; ZCC #2, Map #235 and 236; ZCC #43, Map #237; ZCC #7,
Map #237-26; ZCC #22, Map #237-34; ZCC #7, Map #254
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.
The TejonISebastian Reservation was established in 1853 by Executive Order and

money was appropriated by Congress to establish the Reservation for the Kawaiisu
People.
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:
Governor Pete Wilson 1992 Executive Order W-26-92
CA Penal Code $622 , $623 (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 sea.
CA Government Code $12600 - $12612
CA Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA and Title 24, Part 8
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

California Health and Safety Code 7050, 7052, 8100 (cemetery)
Executive Order W-26-92 (CA Stewardship of Historical Properties)
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
California PRC 5097 - 5097.993, 7050.5
Archeological Resources Protection Act
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
National Environmental Policy Act
1968 Indian Bill of Rights
1966 National Historic Preservation Act
1906 American Antiquities Act
1854 California Cemetery Act (Section 4)
1851 Treaty of Camp Persifer F. Smith
1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
1824 Constitution of s i c 0
1821 Treaty of C6rdoba
Sincerely,
David Laughing Horse Robinson

Chair, Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon Reservation
Date: September 28, 2009
To: Kern County Board of Supervisors

1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield
State of California
Re: Tejon Mountain Village, LLC (PP06201)

Specific and Community Plan and Special Plan,
Development Agreement and Land Use Amendments
File number: GPA #1, Map #218 and 218R; GPA #7,
Map #219; GPA #1, Map #235 and 236; GPA #lo, Map
# 237; GPA #2, Map #237-26; GPA #6,
Map 237-34; GPA #9, Map #254 ZCC #1, Map #218
and 218R; ZCC #12, Map #219; ZCC #2, Map #235
and 236; ZCC #43, Map #237; ZCC #7, Map #237-26;
ZCC #22, Map #237-34; ZCC #7, Map #254
From: Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon Reservation, California

Chair David Laughing Horse Robinson
Reason: Notice of ownership of the TejonISebastian

Reservation
This is a notice to inform the Kern County Board of

Supervisors that the proposed location of the Tejon
Mountain Village Development is an encroachment of the
U. S. Patented property of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon
Reservation known under many Congressional Acts and
Executive Orders as Tejon and/or Sebastian Indian
Reservation. These Acts and Orders have been publicly
noticed to Kern County, Mariposa County and the State of
California and acknowledged through many official
publications and postings such as the Historical Marker a t
Grapevine, CA. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools
was also funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to build,
administer and operate an Indian school on the
TejonJSebastian Reservation. I n accordance with the United
States Constitution an Indian Reservation can only be
Established or Terminated by an Act of Congress. For
Example: Kern County can approve medical marijuana for
growth on private property but the County cannot approve it
to be grown on Federal Lands due to the fact that States
and Counties have limited powers. The same is true for
Federal Lands held in Trust such as is the case of the
TejonJSebastian Indian Reservation. The Applicants for the
Tejon Mountain Village Development need to present at the
hearing on October 5, 2009, the Congressional Act
terminating the TejonJSebastian Indian Reservation; the
Kawaiisu Tribe is not aware of that Congressional Act ever
taking place.
I n Article I,the United States Constitution clearly

provides that Congress was granted the exclusive right and
power over Indian Tribes. The following are several
authorities of law that show how the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon
has had and still has Title to the TejonJSebastian
Reservation.
First, in 1775, Pedro Fages came through Kawaiisu

Lands and relayed his findings to Father Francisco Graces
and Father Pedro Font who traveled through Mojave toward
and into the southern San Joaquin Valley in 1776. I n these
travels they noted in their maps and diaries the different
Kawaiisu Indian Villages. The Maps they produced represent
under Spanish Law, a Diseno (Spanish Land Grant), or
Indian Title to the land. This Land Title was also
acknowledged by Mexico under the Treaty of Cordova,
August 24, 1821.
Second, The conditions of the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty

between the United States of America and the United
Mexican States in 1848 acknowledged and extended the
original 20 million acre Spanish Title to the Kawaiisu. Just
like in Spanish Law when a Mexican Rancho was issued the
previous rights to Native Americans occupation was
guaranteed.
Third, On June 10, 1851 at Camp Persifer Smith the

Kawaiisu awarded a Treaty to the United States Government
for the purpose of peace and respect. I n this treaty we
ceded our 20 million acre Spanish Land Grant in exchange
for 1.2 million acres.
Fourth, in September 1853 it was reduced by

Congressional Act to 75 thousand acres and called the
TejonISebastian Reservation; it was surveyed and funded for
that purpose and became the first California Reservation
held in trust by the United States Congress.
Fifth, On March 3, 1855, Congress passed another Indian

bill that reduced each California Reservation to only 25
thousand acres. TejonISebastian Reservation was funded
again but it was not re-surveyed to reflect the reduced size,
even though that order was made on November 25, 1856.
Sixth, when Judge Pacificus Ord ratified in 1858 the

Rancho El Tejon claim of the original 1843 grantee Jose
Aguirre, who by that time was already acting for Beale, the
legal brief for the case stated, "The grantor shall not disturb
the Tejon Indians in the cultivation of the land and the
employment of the other privileges that they are used to. ...
This condition of the favor of the Indians extends to the
whole land granted, and gives them the exclusive right of
habitation, cultivation, grazing, hunting anywhere within its
boundaries." Judge Pacificus Ord was the presiding Judge
for the Lands Commission ordered by Congress to settle
Spanish and Mexican Land Grants following the Guadalupe
Hidalgo Treaty of July 4, 1848. By this order Judge Ord fully
acknowledges that the Kawaiisu had met the requirements
of the 1850's Commission authorized by the California Land
Act of 1851.
Seventh, the official United States publication of the

"Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
1896-97." I s one of many primary documents
acknowledging the ownership of TejonISebastian
Reservation by the Kawaiisu People as Lineal Descendants
and as having Inherent Legal Rights.
Eighth, the 1924 U. S. Supreme Court case under which

the Tejon Ranch claims title only addresses the California
Land Act of 1851. But the Congressional Act that created the
TejonISebastian Reservation is never addressed. Essentially
the 1924 case was talking about a Rancho Property but not
the Reservation Property. We have to assume that the U.S.
Supreme Court was not fully informed that Judge Ord for the
Commission had ruled that the Kawaiisu have met the
Commission's requirements. The United States Supreme
Court did not make a ruling on the TejonISebastian
Reservation because it was not their jurisdiction.
Ninth, under United States Federal codes and California
Public Laws one cannot gain title to land through an act or
acts of duress. This is and has been the means that the
Tejon Ranch has practiced and is practicing in order to prove
their ownership of the TejonISebastian Reservation. Over
40,000 Kawaiisu People have been killed through the years
at the hands of the different Tejon holders, all in the name
of ownership. To this day if a Kawaiisu person tries to enter
our Reservation we are met with armed guards and told to
leave. We can't even visit our family graves or collect
medicines and food.
Tenth, Federal Lands cannot be sold, transferred, or

removed from Federal status without a specific
Congressional Act that makes provisions for it to be done.
Indian lands are protected in this way in order to stop things
like what the Tejon Ranch is attempting to do. I n fact, there
are specific Arts stating that the Federal government is the
only entity that can buy Indian Lands. So even if the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon wanted to sell the TejonISebastian
Reservation to the Tejon Mountain Village Developers there
is no legal means to accomplish it.
I n conclusion, the Tejon Mountain Village Development

application should be denied if they do not show a t the
hearing on October 5, 2009, a copy of the Congressional Act
that terminates the TejonISebastian Reservation. I f they do
not present that document of the Act that terminates the
TejonISebastian Reservation then they must abandon any
further plans to develop it and peaceably surrender the
Tejon/Se bastian Reservation jurisdiction back to the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon.
I n addition, The Tejon Mountain Village Developers did
not give legal notice as required under NAGPRA and CEQA.
Without adequate time to present a viable response Ihereby
reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks through
verbal or written standards to the Kern County Board of
Supervisors. Ialso request an unimpaired physical visit to
the proposed impacted areas to be developed as required by
law.
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,
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon,

Chair, David Laughing Horse Robinson
Â
October 5, 2009
To: Kern County Board of Supervisors

. Re: Tejon Mountain Village, LLC
My name is David Laughing Horse Robinson of the Kawaiisu

Tribe.
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.
Second, the ownership of the property is in question.
The disenos and surveys put forth by representatives of the Tejon

Ranch do not match. The record shows that the Alamos y Agua
Caliente Rancho was rejected by the Commission. The Federal
Washburn survey in your records has Edward Beales stamp and it
shows a clear discrepancy with what the Tejon Mountain Village
developers have presented. These irregularities put all of Tejon
Ranch holdings in question.
Third, Tejon Ranch has mounted a MEDIA CAMPAIGN of

ethnocide and injustice with this project. The CEO of Tejon is on
the Board of Directors of the Bakersfield Californian.
Â
Just before the Planning Commission hearing last month, Tejon
Ranch created a Media event with the Bakersfield Californian
covering Governor Schwarzenagers visit to the Tejor~Mountain
Village project site. The Planning Commission was so distracted
by that display they neglected to absorb the importance of the 52
page document Ihad submitted about the Sebastian Indian
Reservation on the property.
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.
Also last week, your own Planning Department personnel was

recruited to speak in the Bakersfield Californian claiming that
there was never a formal Indian Reservation there and that
Native American people had never challenged Tejon Ranch's
ownership of the property. Several hundred Civil War Military
records and Congressional Records from the 1800's talk about the
Sebastian Tejon Indian Reservation and the genocide that
happened to my ancestors there.
It is ethnocide to have a County Official make such a denial about

the Reservation in the only newspaper that most people in Kern
County read and it is continuing ethnocide until that statement is
retracted.
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
Ã advocate for more County funds to keep our Libraries and Senior
- Center open in the Lake Isabella Valley.
That kind of ethnocide makes my own tribal people afraid. The

Genocide that has occurred on the Tejon Ranch property makes
them afraid to even stand up for their rights so much so that they
will even try to shoot down one of their own in the newspaper or
someone else that speaks up for the people. Their comments are
hearsay presented without any evidence to back them up. Iam
making my claim with facts backed up with primary documents
from the US Government.
Tejon Ranch Corporation is not a California Company; it is a State

of Delaware Company. Most of their revenue goes out of state
and does not help Kern County taxpayers or benefit the State of
California. Their actions show that they do not care one bit about
the people who live in this County or the true history of our area.
For example, throughout the history of this county Tejon Ranch

has fabricated a fuzzy 1864 connection between the Fort of Tejon
that existed way at the top of Grapevine canyon on the Castaic
Rancho and the Indian Reservation that was 14 miles away on
the Rancho El Tejon. Even the Secretary of War a t the time
complained about the fact that Beale had placed the Military Fort
so far away from the Reservation. I n 1864 the US Government
was worried about the Civil War supporters in our state. They
repeatedly moved a handful of military troops from Camp
Independence to Fort Tejon to Lake Isabella to Visalia and back
to Fort Tejon, Even Tejon Ranch CEO has talked about the
Dragoons coming in in 1864. That was military activity; it had
nothing to do with the status of the Indian Reservation.
a a
Kawaiisu property has been taken under duress in this county.
Some people have brought up the 1924 case that Tejon Ranch
filed to kick us off of our land. That case has no bearing on the
Sebastian Tejon Indian Reservation land that is in the middle of
Tejon Ranch. That is a separate issue.
First of all, we were not citizens at the time so we have had no

way to tell the facts of the property in a court of law.
Second, that case only talks about California Ranchos, not
Federal Indian Reservation land. According to our Constitution,
Indian Reservation lands are only created by an act of Congress.
The Congressional Act creating the Reservatior~in 1853 was
submitted for the record to the Kern County Planning Commission
on August 13,2009.
Just as our U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to

create Indian Reservations, an Indian Reservation can only be
terminated by an Act of Congress.
The Kawaiisu Tribe has never received notice from Congress of

an Act of Congress that terminated our rights as a tribe. AND ...
the Kawaiisu Tribe has never received notice or a copy of an Act
of Congress indicating that the Sebastian Tejon Indian
Reservation has been terminated.
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.
Irequest that you keep the public hearing record open .

for an additional time for submission of further comments
on the project.
I f you want to understand how seriously our tribe takes

document collecting and the recording of accurate data, our Pre-
Columbian records go back 56,700 years, so when you start
getting serious about Climate Change, I will bring those records
forward also. For now Iwill probably only have a truck load of
documents to file.
Thank you,
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon,

Chair, David Laughing Horse Robinson

Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon V Ken Salazar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon V Ken Salazar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N PAPER

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1. I, Plaintiff, David Laughing Horse Robinson,

also known as Clyde David Robinson, am bringing this action

to this court on behalf of myself and as duly elected

Chairman of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. The Kawaiisu Tribe

of Tejon received California Tribal acknowledgement on

August 17, 1989, Number 1645093. I am descended from my

Grandmother, Stella Butterbredt Robinson Metz, California

Indian Roll Number 21529. My father, Clyde Lee Robinson's

California Indian Roll Number is 074317 and my California

Indian Roll Number is 53872. This action is timely filed,

within 30 days of the filing of the Notice of

Determination, by the County of Kern.

2. This case is before the court due to an

administrative oversight by The Department of Interi'

eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau

of Indian Affairs. This will require the Assistant

Secretary - Indian Af fairs to reaffirm the formal

recognition of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. Immediate

action is requested from this court because of the immense

and the citizens of California.

3. ~ l s o ,this case is before this court due to

another administrative oversight by the Department Of

Interior. The Federally recognized 75,000 acre

Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (Map #311 EXHIBIT 1) has

been unlawfully omitted from the list of Kawaiisu Tribe of

Tejon trust lands, due to the failure of the fiduciary

trust responsibility of the Department of Interior under

the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs to restore the

Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation, Library of Congress

ceded map #311 (EX. I), to Trust. Immediate action is

requested from this court because of the immense importance

to the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon, its citizens, and the

to halt a massive development recently approved on the

Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's Federally Recognized Reservation

known as the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1).

5. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon also asks this

7 Treaty D, signed at Camp Persifer F. Smith, at the Texan

15 Francisco Garces and Father Pedro Font for the Government

Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

23 1896 - 97 and the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of

24 American Ethnology, Bulletin 30 Handbook of American

Ka-wig-a-suh,Kawishm, Kow-a'-sah, Kubakhye, Newool-ah,

6 Noches Colteches, Ta-hi-cha-pa-han-na, and Ta-hichp'

15 incorporating any of the names used to identify our Tribe:

23 the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1). This is

7 that Supreme Court case the issuance of allotments reversed

15 Applicant. Governor Schwarzenegger accepted a large

23 development project that will create irreversible damage to

24 the tribe and is an unlawful act that meets the definition

resort with two 18 hole golf courses on October 5, 2009.

7 hotels, 750 resort lodging units, 3,450 residences (on lots

15 transfer Indian Reservation Lands and the State of

23 86-634, July 12, 1960, HR4386, 74 Stat. 469: It is illegal

24 to destroy, deface, or remove boundary markers on Indian

13. Additionally, the EIR shows plans to destroy

Illegal and offensive language is in the Lead Agency EIR

states: ^'the property owner (who is also the owner of the

remains), and of any associated archaeological materials."

Public Law 86-634, July 12, 1960, HR4386, 74 Stat. 469: It

14. Defendant, United States Department of

Interior (DOI) was obligated to present Treaty D, our