Connect the dots

Who's job is it anyway, to schedule and meet with CALTRANS to determine matters of public access on private property? About my LAST guess would be the the County Sheriffs Department. But in Santa Barbara County that is exactly what is going on. A certain unnamed lieutenant of the sheriffs department called a meeting with the road people (CALTRANS) "to provide public access to the river through their easement". I would call this a huge WTF moment. Can someone enlighten me as to how this falls on the shoulders of the SB County Sheriff? An organization which up until now, like all local constabulary, had my deepest respect. Under whos orders did this lieutenant undertake this 'assignment'. One may immediately wonder why this would be of any concern to begin with. Read on, gentle readers, and connect the dots for yourselves. From the SYV Journal:

ON THE RANCH
By Nancy Crawford-Hall


Ranch happenings

Life is never boring on a ranch. There is always something happening somewhere; sometimes good, sometimes bad. We had a little of both last week. First, I got a call that we had trespassers down by Lower Windmill Field near our bridge that crosses the river, a bridge that was given to us by CALTRANS when they built the new one a number of years ago. Instead of destroying the old bridge, they gave it to us, which is very helpful in getting cattle across the river bed, which is treacherous even when dry — which it is most of the time. A couple of ranch employees went down to see who these folks were and why they thought it was OK to trespass. It turns out that it was three Audubon Society members doing a winter bird count who left when they were told the sheriff had already been called to cite them.

Before the ranch employees left, however, an odd thing happened. Across Highway 154, at Lower Armour Ranch Road, two CALTRANS vehicles appeared with another unmarked sheriff’s car. Apparently a meeting had been called, and when I inquired of the one CALTRANS official who didn’t speed off upon seeing my car just what the meeting was about, since I was the property owner there, I was told that it had to do with fences and property lines. We had a cordial conversation, introducing ourselves and exchanging pertinent contact information, and we each went on about the rest of our day.

What I found out later that day rocked me to my very soul. Apparently, a lieutenant of the sheriff’s department in Solvang had called the meeting to ask CALTRANS to provide public access to the river through their easement. CALTRANS properly declined, stating that their easement was with a private property owner and that they could not make it public. This officer had also been in contact, from what I hear, with someone in the County Counsel’s office who opined that the river was public property, which it is not. None of these people had ever contacted me or any of my employees on this topic, and I am wondering what this secret effort to open my property to the public is all about.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why this would be happening, although it has been suggested that a possible reason could be the recent citations for Raul Armenta Jr. and two friends for hunter trespass and hunting after hours for ducks which could only be ‘nol-prossed’ – the charges dropped – if it occurred on public property. According to witnesses, the young men protested being cited and said they would talk to Sacramento to see if it was ‘legal’ to cite them. (ed~Sacramento? or perhaps just a favorite uncle with good 'ole buddies at the Sheriff's Dept.??) This could only be deemed public property if the county entered into a condemnation process on the entire Santa Ynez River properties, owned by hundreds of residents, and paid for it, which it can’t begin to afford; it would take many years in court to settle on prices with each owner.

So, be aware, fences keep animals in, but are also meant to keep the public out. You may ask for permission to enter private property from the owner or a representative, but you may not enter until after you have received permission. Otherwise, you risk being cited for trespass and you risk possible injury from objects or animals.

(ed.~ Raul Armenta is the nephew of Vincent Armenta, Chumash Tribal Chairman. Vincent is a longtime NON fan of the Valley Journal and Nancy Crawford-Hall, because the Journal prints the real story of all things casino and it's real effects in the the once lovely SY Valley.)

How bout a little cheese with that whine... Mr. Cohen Sock-Puppet?

When an attorney publishes a statement like...

"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"

... I scratch my head. Anything can be argued and I thought attorneys do (and know) that best. Besides, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. Unlike Indian aristocracies, we here in the United States value our free speech, and our right to question anything we damn well please.

Hmmm.. then i read a little further. Is "Mr. Cohen" REALLY a member of the tribe?:

"we were surprised by Lynch’s ridiculous accusations regarding the validity of our tribe"

Sounds to me like Vincent Armenta has a little Sammy Sockpuppet.

The "author" also claims Mr. Lynch was paid. I would like to see the receipt for that. Again I doubt a real attorney would say this kind of thing without proof.

The "author" makes a big deal out of Mr. Lynch having worked with heating equipment and attempts to quip:

"Is their next step hiring Larry the Cable Guy to provide his insights on the economic impact of Indian gaming? "

Well, if thats silly, how about hiring a welder to run a Las Vegas style casino Mr. Arementa? errr... Mr. Sammy Sockpuppet?

If the "author" really wanted to prove their point why not dispense with this pithy rebuttal and just link to scans of the 'proof' documents themselves?

Here it is from Capitol Weekly:

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?

Don't hold your breath...

...if you think you will see the following information from the Capitol Weekly any time soon in the local MSM (main stream media). KEYT, The News Press and the (so-called) Independent are way too addicted to the advertising dollars received from the Chumash Casino to print anything that is not utterly positive about their gambling operation. As this information about the tribe comes to the surface all you are likely to see in local media are puff pieces on how wonderful and dandy the casino is for the community and environment. Basically when you buy a local 'news' paper you are paying to read the opinions of that newspapers advertisers. Same thing for local TV 'news'. Whores.

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.

So there you have it - the chumash casino is on non tribal land, owned by a non-tribe - run by an man of german/mexican descent. Isn't that just terrific.

Previously at tribal watch:
Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!
SY Valley's Journal

It's about the casino, stupid!

In rebuttal to Vincent Armenta's article in Capitol Weekly, a Santa Ynez resident says it clearly enough that even Mr. Armenta should understand. It's not about race hatred. (How can it be about "race" when most people have potted plants that are more "Indian" than the "Chumash"?) According to Vincent however people like Ms. Bowen here are full of hatred and jealousy, and have no business stating their opinion, she's just another whacko, gonzo, hater.

“Hate groups” or average citizens?
By Kathryn Bowen (published Thursday, November 08, 2007)

I am a 43-year-old mother of two. I have a family, a job, a home, I vote and I pay my taxes.

In the year 2000, a 260,000 square foot casino gets built in the heart of our rural community in Santa Ynez Valley (Population 22,000) less than a mile from four elementary schools and our high school with little to no input from the public. In fact, the mere questioning of the size and scope of the project brought immediate and brutal allegations of racism among other epithets from tribal Chairman, Vincent Armenta and tribal spokeswoman Frances Snyder.

Fast forward 7 years. Not much has changed. Screaming racism or “hate” as Chairman Armenta did in his November 1 “Gonzo journalism gone wild” commentary in Capitol Weekly is far easier than to address the real issues of land use, regulatory paralysis, the loss of representative government and the outright abuse of federal law.

Slowly our rights as a community have disappeared as elected officials continue to turn their backs on the people that elected them to office and open their pocket books to big gambling interests. Unlike much of the legalized gambling spreading like a cancer across this country, our casino along with 390 other tribal casinos nationwide are non-transparent, government sponsored, cash printing machines. Casino tribes are allowed to rely on services and infrastructure provided by the hosting community, but the community in turn cannot impose its regulatory system or property taxes for reimbursement because it is perceived as impeding on their sovereignty.

Let’s just be very clear. Casino tribes are not subject to the same laws or taxes as any other business in this country, are not accountable to host communities, not accountable to their own tribal members and if four casino tribes have their way come February, not accountable to the California taxpayer either. Yet, taxpayers are expected to subsidize a $27 billion and growing industry. Shall we dump the tea in the harbor one more time?

These issues are serious enough but just the tip of the iceberg. The more global issues are still submerged under the surface and considering the exhaustive list of related cases before our federal courts, is about to erupt.

Bottom Line: The American taxpayer and the growing number of disenrolled tribal members have become collateral damage to our government in a disastrous experiment that began with a train called the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and given “run away status” when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. Promoting inequality and separatism through granting gambling monopolies and allowing tens of thousands of acres to be placed into federal trust status to expand “sovereign” tribal territories within our borders because of past persecution is misguided at best and at worst will undue the constitutional protections secured to all people, tribal and non-tribal.

All we have requested from the press is to report the facts without bowing down to intimidation methods or multi-millions of dollars of casino advertising revenue. Nancy Crawford-Hall of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal has done both for our community. Giving Chairman Armenta space to spew such hateful and divisive remarks without having to address the real issues illustrates the kind of intimidation host communities have put up with for years.

Since when did taxpaying, law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to question what our government is doing become the enemy and labeled “hate groups” for challenging flawed federal laws that are weakening a democratic form of government?

Worldwide, casinos are being shut down by the thousands due to the economic and social strain they produce. So why is it considered “hate” when we challenge tribes and our government in their partnered effort to promote gambling as “easy money” when taxpayers are going to be the ones footing a very expensive bill when the party is over and the hangover begins? Why can we not question the Governor for signing every taxpaying citizen on to this lie of free money when he can privately negotiate deals excluding the host communities that are affected the most?

We challenge the Governor and the legislators on the false promise of growing revenue for the state. Where is the close to $1 billion Governor Schwarzenegger promised from his renegotiated 2004 compacts? He has collected an anemic $27 million with costs to the state continuing to grow. Just one example: Governor Schwarzenegger recently took away $1.3 million our community was suppose to receive from the Special Distribution Fund (SDF) intended to minimally mitigate the impacts of the casino. Who is going to pay for this?

The myriad of constitutional issues along with the fallacy that gambling revenue with solve budgetary shortfalls and stimulate economic vitality in our state must be questioned. Hate isn’t the issue.


RELATED ARTICLES:
Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!
SY Valley's Journal

Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!

Mr. Armenta of the Chumash casino of Santa Ynez submitted this rebuttal to Capitol Weekly in response to their original article. Though he criticizes Ms. Halls's journalistic skills, I myself wonder why he would knock off the title of a soft porn movie to launch his diatribe. Perhaps he needs to look elsewhere for inspiration. Or maybe just pay better attention. It is not 'hate' to dislike having a casino in one's backyard Mr. Armenta. Nor is it 'hate' to want to limit casino expansion. The only ad hominem attacks I see in any of these articles are in your rebuttal Mr. Armenta. As for drama? This editorial is a splendid example! Congrats!

Gonzo Journalism gone wild
By Vincent Armenta (published Thursday, November 01, 2007)
Capitol Weekly's October 18, 2007, article, "Santa Ynez woman buys paper, covers tribal casino," painted a rosy picture of a local woman purchasing a newspaper. But like the Santa Ynez Valley Journal itself, the article didn't tell the whole story.

It's no secret that Nancy Crawford-Hall, the new owner of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal, is a longtime foe of our tribe, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. She has attended Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meetings to speak out against our tribe, participated with anti-Chumash hate groups in the community and has written many angry columns in her publication accusing the tribe of everything from paying off politicians to being parasites.

Since Crawford-Hall took over ownership of the Valley Journal, we have had the displeasure of seeing multiple rants against our tribe in her "newspaper" on a weekly basis. Clearly, she doesn't follow the principles of good journalism by bringing quality news reporting to the public. In fact, there's no pretense of journalism at all. If journalism's first obligation is to the truth, the Valley Journal's obligation is to sensationalism and propaganda.

The Valley Journal goes back in time to the media climate prior to the 20th Century where the media market was dominated by smaller newspapers and pamphleteers who usually had an overt and often radical agenda, with no presumption of balance or objectivity.

From our perspective, it appears that the Valley Journal is a publication that is designed for the sole purpose of promoting hate against the tribe by criticizing the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in every issue. The publication's motto might very well be: "All the Gossip That's Not Fit To Print."

Take, for example, Crawford-Hall's "expose" on the tribe's so-called plans to bring 5,000 more slot machines to our facility. She obtained copies of minutes of a tribal council meeting and printed excerpts, but didn't bother to paint the entire picture. We weren't planning to bring 5,000 more machines to our facility, and we haven't. Facts, apparently, aren't important to Crawford-Hall.

Instead, readers were treated to weekly updates of the "No More Slots" campaign in an attempt to cause panic and hysteria by predicting that the sky was falling. The tribal opponents established a Web site, collected signatures, had a town meeting, donned T-shirts with "No More Slots" slogans and marched around Sacramento carrying a Tupperware container filled with scraps of paper. Their campaign fizzled after much fanfare and, as we said all along, we didn't bring 5,000 more slots to the Valley.

Ex-employees of the Valley Journal, of which there are many, tell us of Crawford-Hall's tirades against any editor or reporter who tries to include anything that remotely resembles balanced reporting when it comes to matters concerning the tribe. [if you think those stories are bad you should hear what ex-casino employees have to say about YOU Vincent. I would invite them to post here but our 'family' rating would go right out the window.- ed] She recently fired a columnist who wrote an op-ed that was non-biased. Evidently, an opinion that didn't condemn the tribe didn't have a place in her paper.

Crawford-Hall claims that her paper is the only one printing the truth about the community. The reality is that the local media--print, television and radio--all uphold journalistic standards and run fair, balanced and truthful news on the community, including news on the tribe and our Chumash Casino Resort. Because the coverage is objective, the way journalism should be, Crawford-Hall doesn't like it.

We have battled the Crawford-Halls of our community for nearly a decade. It seems that the more successful our business enterprise, the angrier they become. They hold town hall meetings that a casual observer described as one long gripe session against the tribe. They circulate petitions that go nowhere. They become incensed by virtually everything our tribe does--including making donations to the community.

Crawford-Hall's purchase of the Valley Journal is not a testament to a community member buying a paper to create a community voice. It's a demonstration of what happens when a group of elitists have too much time and too much money.

In Capitol Weekly's article, Crawford-Hall says, "We are telling the stories that no one else will tell." One example might be the front page article she ran stating that Mars will be the brightest object in the night sky when it comes within 34,649,589 miles of Earth. Of course, the story, an urban legend, was a false chain e-mail and passed off as the truth. Like everything else in her paper, the article failed miserably when it comes to meeting basic journalistic standards.

At the end of the day, Crawford-Hall's publication is just another chapter to add to the legacy of the local extreme groups. More drama, more hate, and more fish wrap.