So Its Not About The People ?

POLO / POSY have all along claimed that their actions and words are “not about the people” yet they hire this “expert” (who, by the way, admitted in court that he actually made his living selling air conditioners and has no training in land titles or surveying) to research then write an op-ed that questions the Chumash’s legitimacy as a Federally recognized tribe as well as the reservation itself, along with more personal attacks on Mr. Armenta. This man is a hired gun who has, under sworn testimony, admitted that he has never ever concluded that any Indian tribe he investigated met the standards for federal acknowledgement. What a surprise. Give the customers what they paid for.

When someone or some group attack a tribes legitimacy as a Federally recognized tribe and question whether or not their reservation is legitimate it can only be about one thing and one thing only... the people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Santa Ynez Chumash: A question of legitimacy
By James Lynch (published Thursday, November 22, 2007)

In a recent commentary published by Capitol Weekly (November 1, 2007, “Gonzo journalism gone wild”), Vincent Armenta, Chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians continued a litany of disparaging remarks concerning citizens groups and media outlets located in Los Olivos (POLO) and Santa Ynez (POSY), groups that have in the past questioned the Chairman’s leadership and tribal activities.

Behind all the comments and counter-comments made between the tribe and these two groups there is not only a question of distrust, but a core issue that centers upon the question of legitimacy. Myriad questions have arisen as to the legitimacy of the tribe, the legitimacy of the Santa Ynez reservation, and even the genealogical legitimacy of Chairman Armenta. We are confronted then, with three such core issues: tribe, reservation, and leadership. When these three issues are examined, we will be able to see why there is such a controversy.

First of all, there is the question of the legitimacy of the reservation. Chairman Armenta, in his May 2005 testimony presented to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee claimed that a reservation was established in 1901 for the Santa Ynez by the federal government. When the historical record is examined, we find this was not so.

In 1899, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the region bought suit against the Indian population living on the Church-owned lands at Santa Ynez. The Church, in its suit named five families who were the descendants of the original Santa Ynez Mission Indian population as defendants. In 1901, a settlement was agreed upon wherein the Church and a second property owner (Santa Ynez Land and Improvement Co.) agreed to convey the acreage in question to the Department of the Interior with certain stipulations, the principle one being that if the five families or their descendants ever abandon the tract, ownership would revert back to the owners. There were also other issues of residual rights. What is important also was the lands were being conveyed to the Interior Department, not to the tribe. The agreement was never put into effect due to title-related issues. The problem was still not resolved in 1940, when again the property-owners agree to “donate” the land to the government under a 1931 Indian donation Act.

Historical investigations into the resolution of this issue find no actions in the federal record that indicate that the federal government finally took ownership of the lands of the reservation. Yet we find in a 1967 document that the land is now a considered a reservation. Where is the documentation signifying that the United States took ownership of the reservation lands? Where is the documentation or announcement in the Federal Register declaring the existence of a Santa Ynez reservation? An additional question is thus raised. If the title to this land was assumed by the federal government as title-holder, how can these lands be declared to be “in trust”, if the Tribe never had ownership title to be placed into federal trust to begin with?

Our second question concerns the legitimacy of the tribe itself. Both the tribe and the current Bureau of Indian Affairs leadership claim that the Santa Ynez received federal recognition as an Indian tribe by virtue of the 1891 Mission Indian Relief Act. Yet when the congressional record of the Act is researched, we find a listing of the names of the Mission Indian bands that were to come under this Act. The Santa Ynez was not listed among them. Further investigation reveals no subsequent amendment or specific legislation that places the Santa Ynez band under this Act. There were no subsequent Acts by Congress recognizing the Santa Ynez as a tribe nor were their any administrative acts by the Bureau of Indian Affairs bestowing such recognition. In 1964 the Santa Ynez voted to come under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. This vote would or should have declared invalid in that the band did not meet the qualifications or requirements specified in the Act to be eligible to come under its auspices (residing upon a reservation for one). Thus there is no record of the Santa Ynez Chumash ever having been federally recognized as a tribe nor was such an announcement ever published by the federal government.

Additionally, none of the current membership of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians can trace their genealogies back to the five families present on the church-owned lands at Santa Ynez in 1901. As a matter of fact, none of the current membership can trace their ancestry back to the Santa Ynez band prior to 1940. Thus the result was a tribal constitution written in 1964 which required that the members of the tribe need only prove their Santa Ynez ancestry back to 1940. Bureau of Indian Affairs documents, census’s as well as federal census records from 1910-1930 described this post 1910 population as being Mexican, Shoshone, and from Senora (the documents do not tell us whether they meant Senora in Mexico or from the Senora Mission Band in Arizona)

Third, there is the question of Chairman Armenta. Vincent Armenta is the son of Manuel Armenta and his wife of German descent, Iona (Selig) Armenta. Manuel’s father was a “Spanish-Mexican” Loreto Armenta. His mother was Florencia (Pina) Armenta.

Florencia according to census records was listed as having 1/4 Indian blood in 1910. She was the daughter of Jose Deserderio who was born in 1866 at Purisima. Her mother Maria Antonia Pena was from Senora (Arizona or Mexico?). Maria was the daughter of a Maria Solares and a man of unknown ethnicity named Aguirres. None of these descent lines can be traced back to any of the five families so-named by the Catholic Church in 1901 as being the descendants of the Santa Ynez Indian community at Mission Santa Ynez. According to a Bureau of Indian Affairs census Vincent Armenta’s family did not move onto the Santa Ynez reservation until 1940.


Is it no wonder that residents of Los Olivos and Santa Ynez question the legitimacy of the current Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, its leadership, and by extension the legitimacy of their gaming facility established under the provisions of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and act intended for federally-recognized Indian tribes, residing upon federally established Indian reservations whose lands are held in-trust by the federal government. All POLO and POSY are asking for are accurate and honest answers to fair, legitimate questions.

Link - http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=wpb6fx88h9w4kj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here is the Chumash’s Response.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Historical record confirms legitimacy of Santa Ynez Chumash
By Sam Cohen (published Thursday, November 29, 2007)

To read James Lynch’s op-ed (“The Santa Ynez Chumash: A Question of Legitimacy”) in last week’s Capitol Weekly, one would think that there are questions surrounding the Santa Ynez Chumash tribe. There aren’t.

Let’s get one thing straight: The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is a federally recognized tribe that is listed in the Federal Register of the U.S. Department of the Interior. There’s no arguing that fact, and that should have been the end of it. But for the tribal opponents in the Santa Ynez Valley, facts have never gotten in the way of creating their own version of the truth.


Lynch’s op-ed represents only the latest in a long history of attacks against the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians by a small group of tribal opponents in the Santa Ynez Valley.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to pick up a newspaper and read ludicrous claims from our tribal opponents. The vast majority of their ridiculous assertions are not even worthy of a response, including Lynch’s op-ed. It was riddled with so many factual inaccuracies that we wondered if we were reading an excerpt from a fictional novel.

While our first inclination was to ignore Lynch’s op-ed, we were bothered by the fact that an individual could make such outlandish claims and pass them off as the truth. We wondered how such preposterous allegations would make it past Capitol Weekly’s editorial standards.

Lynch mentions an 1899 court case (which was actually first filed in 1897), but he apparently failed to read the decision and order of the Court from March 31, 1906 (The Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey vs. Salamon Cota, et al), both recognizing the Santa Ynez Indians and finding that the tribe’s existence predates the acquisition of the California territory by the United States in 1846. It also identifies the Zanja De Cota Creek reservation of the tribe.

Because there is such a wealth of well-researched historical documentation about the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and about the Santa Ynez Reservation, we were surprised by Lynch’s ridiculous accusations regarding the validity of our tribe.

In addition, his personal attacks on Chairman Armenta and his family were completely unnecessary. Frankly, we questioned the decision of Capitol Weekly’s editors to allow such statements to remain in Lynch’s op-ed.

Unfortunately, what Capitol Weekly editors may not know is that an entirely new cottage industry has surfaced within the tribal gaming industry. It’s an industry in which tribal opponents create their own experts and make up their own facts. Want to question a tribe’s very existence? Contact an individual who will make whatever disparaging comments you want against a tribe — for a fee.

Many of the so-called experts who travel the circuit are not recognized as legitimate in the real world. Take Lynch, for example. He has worked on a handful of fee-for-service projects that have consistently resulted in anti-tribal opinions. In a court document under sworn testimony, Lynch admitted that he has never concluded that any Indian tribe he investigated met the standards for federal acknowledgement.

With his anti-tribal track record and hired gun status, he was engaged by POLO/POSY, a tribal opposition group in Santa Ynez Valley that has fought everything from the tribe’s liquor license application (in the middle of wine country where more than 60 wineries reside) to the tribe’s plans to build a Chumash cultural museum.

For us, Lynch’s credibility is at the core of this latest attack from these tribal opponents. Under sworn testimony in 2006 (pages 481 and 483 of State of New York vs. Shinnecock Indian Nation), Lynch admits that he has no training in land titles or surveying and has spent the majority of his career as a heating equipment salesperson.

We certainly have no beef with heating equipment salespeople. But it’s highly doubtful that they possess the historical background and formal training required to research a topic as complex as colonial history. We have reviewed court documents in which Lynch provided so-called expert testimony, and he withered under cross-examination on questions pertaining to his credibility.

In his op-ed, Lynch claims that all POLO/POSY are asking for are accurate and honest answers to fair, legitimate questions. If that’s the case, why did they feel the need to employ a hired gun to spew out information that is not based on reality?

We have, in fact, answered any number of questions from POLO/POSY over the years, but they continue to search for answers that only fit their own distorted illusions. Truth, apparently, is not a requirement for them.

After all the shenanigans that these tribal opponents have been involved with lately, we have to wonder what’s next on their agenda. They hired a heating equipment salesperson to research the tribe’s history. Is their next step hiring Larry the Cable Guy to provide his insights on the economic impact of Indian gaming?

Link - http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=wpwxqkqyhm8jw7