Here are the materials in Aguayo v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.):
Contributors
Top Posts
- Univ. of Montana Law Dean Posting
- Interesting Tenth Circuit Appeal on Confessions at Kewa Pueblo
- Tribal Court Denies Injunction in Nooksack Disenrollee Challenge
- Eighth Circuit Rejects Sandy Lake Chippewa Secretarial Election Appeal -- UPDATED with briefs
- Seattle U. Law School/Bristol Bay Native Assn. Fellowship Posting
I read to some detail the document denying the TRO. What isn’t clear to me is this: the proof and validity of original blood line (who the tribal members membership was based) was deemed to be valid by official BIA action. Then the acting tribal council denounces this particular family’s tribal membership – what happened in between? Was there new evidence (strong evidence or otherwise) to suggest something about the original blood line or this family’s connection to it?
Pingback: Pala Disenrollment Saga Adds Another Chapter « Strict Liability in Blog
This has nothing to do with casino money.
Good blog post as referred. The author mentions: …
“[m]ore it sounds like arguing for racial purity, and no one does that in this world anymore.” Actually, Nazi Germany had that ideology in modern time during or leading to WWII. The racial purity mentality leads to genocide. By embracing the yard stick given by and used by the government (e.g. the blood quantum standard), tribes run the risk of implosion figuratively or literally.