20 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton, Draft General Plan Page 8 October 9, 2008 On May 24, 1996, the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to the regulatory process then issued a letter to the Muwekma Ohlone tribe concluding that the Tribe was indeed a Federally Recognized Tribe. I proudly support the long struggle of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as they continue to seek justice and to finally, and without further delay, achieve their goal of their reaffirmation of their tribal status by the federal government. This process has dragged on long enough. I hope that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior will do the right thing and act positively to grant the Muwekma Ohlone tribe their rights as a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has waited long enough; let them get on with their lives as they seek to improve the lives of the members of this proud tribe. To do anything else is to deny this tribe Justice. They have waited patiently and should not have to wait any longer. More recently, on September 21, 2006, another victory was handed to the Muwekma Tribe by Judge Reginald B. Walton from the U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C. stating: The following facts are not in dispute. Muwekma is a group of American Indians indigenous to the San Francisco Bay area, the members of which are direct descendants of the historical Mission San Jose Tribe, also known as the Pleasanton or Verona Band of Alameda County "the Verona Band From 1914 to 1927, the Verona Band was recognized by the federal government as an Indian tribe. Neither Congress nor any executive agency ever formally withdrew federal recognition of the Verona Band.... Upon remand, the Department must provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for its refusal to waive the Part 83 procedures when evaluating Muwekma's request for federal tribal recognition, particularly in light of its willingness to "clarifly] the status of [Ione]... [and] reaffirm[] the status of [Lower Lake] without requiring [them] to submit petition[s] under Part 83." Such an explanation may not rely on the fact that a "lengthy and thorough" evaluation of Muwekma's petition. At issue for the purpose of this remand is not whether the Department correctly evaluated Muwekma's completed petition under the Part 83 criteria, but whether it had a sufficient basis to requite Muwekma to proceed under the heightened evidentiary burden of the Part 83 procedures in the first place, given Muwekma's alleged similarity to Ione and Lower Lake. As of April 30, 2007, it appears that the BIA failed to respond to Judge Walton's court order. On September 30, 2008 the US District Court in Washington, D.C. handed the Muwekma Tribe another victory. Judge Reginald B. Walton opined: These arguments, and the explanation from the Department giving rise to them, seemin cannot be reconciled with the Court's September 21, 2006, memorandum opinion. The Court rejected both of these arguments. It dismissed the defendants' d waving reference to `highly fact specific determinations, which, in the Court's estim ton, "[did] not free the defendants" of their obligation to justify the decision to treat the p aintiff differently from Ione and Lower Lake based on the administrative record for the plaintiff's petition....