Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon v Ken Salazar

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

IS

2C

2 1

22

23

24

2:

2f

-0 72

(Rev. US,

N PAPER

David Laughing Horse Robinson, Chairman Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon P.O. Box 1547

MV 1 0 2003 ~ernville, CA 93238 (661) 378-1085

Attorney for Plaintiff, PRO SE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, ) by its Chairman, ) David Laughing Horse Robinson,) And, 1 DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON ) As Representative of the Class) of Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon ) Persons, and 1 DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON,)

1 Plaintiffs, )

) V. 1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ) Secretary KEN SALAZAR, ) in his official capacity and )

) COUNTY OF KERN, 1 State of California, )

) Defendants. )

1 -and- )

) TEJON MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC ) Real Party in Interest. 1

Civil Case No.

1: 0 9'CV 0 1 9 7 7 0\W SMS

COMPLAINT

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 f airs to reaffirm the formal

recognition of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. Immediate

? a Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and 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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

2 5

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82:


County of Kern, State of California. The applicants for the

development are Tejon Ranch Company, Tejon Mountain Village

LLC and selected companies they control.

5. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon also asks this

court to define our "Indian Country" as set forth under

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

Pass, State of California, June 10, 1851, between George W.

Barbour United States Commissioner, and the Chiefs,

Captains and Head Men of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon.

Treaty D is defined on the Library of Congress Ceded Land

map #286 (EXHIBIT #2). Ceded Land Map #286 (EX. 2)

duplicates the Diseno maps of 1776 and 1777 by Father

Francisco Garces and Father Pedro Font for the Government

of Spain (EXHIBIT # 3 ) .

6. Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's "Indian Countryir is

outlined and defined in the 5fith Congress, lst Session, House

of Representatives Document Number 786 called the

Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American

Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

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

Indians North of Mexico published July 1, 1905. In the

Ã 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82;

a Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kem, CA

Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico the Kawaiisu

Tribe of Tejon are documented under several different

names: Cobajais, Cobaji, Covaji, Kah-wisl-sah, Kawaiisu,

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

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

(EXHIBIT # 4 ) .

7. The Diseno Maps (EX. 3) of 1776 and 1777 by

Father Francisco Garces and Father Pedro Font for the

Government of Spain use several of our Tribal designations

on their maps: Cobaji, Cobajaef, Quabajai, Nochi, Nochis

(EX. 3).

8. No acts of termination have ever been affirmed

incorporating any of the names used to identify our Tribe:

Cobajais, Cobaji, Covaji, Kah-wisf-sah, Kawaiisu, Ka-wit-a-

suh, Kawishm, Kow-a?-sah, Kubakhye, Newoor-ah, Noches

Colteches, Ta-hi-cha-pa-han-na, and Ta-hichpt (EX. 4).

9. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon have been issued

over 32 Patented Indian Allotments. The United States

issued allotments to Kawaiisu Tribal members who lived on

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

consistent with the Supreme Court finding of Mattz v.

Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973). In that case the unanimous

' . 1

2

. 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82

a Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

court ruled that the allotment provisions of the Act of

June 17, 1892 are completely consistent with continued

reservation status. In other words, by issuing allotments

the Department of Interior and Congress are continuing to

recognize the existence of a tribe and it's reservation. In

that Supreme Court case the issuance of allotments reversed

termination; the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon have never been

terminated, hold allotments and have a reservation.

10. Plaintiff is in immediate danger of sustaining

irreversible injury if the court does not take action at

this time. Four of five of our Board of Supervisors

accepted large campaign donations from the development

Applicant. Governor Schwarzenegger accepted a large

campaign donation from Applicant after a PR appearance

before the Planning Commission vote. The machine is moving

forward to receive a favorable public and political outcome

while violating equal treatment for the Kawaiisu Tribe of

Tejon. Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon has a pre-historic and

historic claim to the property but was not noticed on a

development project that will create irreversible damage to

the tribe and is an unlawful act that meets the definition

of genocide and ethnocide .

. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

Â Kawaiisu Tribe of v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

11. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon (KTOT) seeks

emergency relief because the County of Kern, as Lead

Agency, approved a massive 26,417 acre private luxury

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

his complex development is designed to also have three

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

up to 20 acres in size), 160,000 sq. feet of commercial

development, two helipads, fire facilities and more.

12. Defendant and Lead Agency, Kern County, has

approved this development on the ~awaiisu Tribe of Tejon's

Indian Reservation, which is Federal property. Congress is

the only Branch of Government that has the power to

transfer Indian Reservation Lands and the State of

California agreed with those Federal Government guidelines

to gain Statehood. Kern County does not have Jurisdiction

to take this action. The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon alerted

Defendant, Kern County, about this fact before the Kern

County Planning Commission voted on the project and before

the Board of Supervisors voted on the project. Public Law

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

to destroy, deface, or remove boundary markers on Indian

Reservations or to tresspass.


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 ~ndian Reservations 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

Â Kawaiisu Tribe o v. 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 ~ribe of 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

( 184 8 Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty) . The Spanish and ~exican

0 Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

< A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

? Â Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

i n t h e EIR. Kern County Planning o f f i c i a l s den ied , a t t h e

t e l e v i s e d hea r ing , t h a t t h e r e w e r e any p l a n s f o r a Casino

on t h e p rope r ty and t h a t t h e r e w a s no reason f o r it t o be

i n t h e EIR.

1 7 . It i s c l e a r t h a t Defendants, Kern County,

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 brought

be fo re t h i s Court t o f a c e t h e s e charges . The Kawaiisu T r i b e

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

e thnoc ide and seeks emergency i n t e r v e n t i o n .

18. A t t h e o u t s e t , t h e Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon

asks 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

t h e Tejon Mountain V i l l a g e LLC Development P r o j e c t from

being c a r r i e d o u t whi le t h e c la ims of t h i s case are be ing

reso lved . 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

Complaint.

JURISDICTION AMD VENUE

This c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s a c t i o n pursuant

t o 28 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505, t h e Ind ian Tucker A c t . T h e A c t

conveys j u r i s d i c t i o n because t h e U.S. waives i t s sovere ign

immunity t o permi t Ind ian T r i b e s t o s u e f o r damages i n t h e

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

< A0 72

(Rev. ff 82)


Court of Federal Claims for claims arising [after August

13, 19461 under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the

US, or Executive orders of the President, or Congress which

otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal

Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe, band, or

group.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17 (1831)

27 Stanford Law Review 1213, 1223, Reid Payton Chambers

Judicial Enforcement for the Federal Trust Responsibility

to Indians

This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. Sec 1331 (Constitution, treaty, federal law) and

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

This Court has jurisdiction because the claim presents

a question of Federal Indian Law.

This Court has jurisdiction because the monetary

relief exceeds $75,000.

Venue is proper in the District Court because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the

Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district.

U.S.C. Sec 1391

<&A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


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


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 because o f

t h e a c t i o n s or i n a c t i o n s of t h e Department of 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, men ta 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 of Genocide and E thnoc ide .

The Tribe and P l a i n t i f f have been , 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 and a c t i o n s of t h e Department of

I n t e r i o r and t h e v i o l a t i o n s of CEQA and NAGPRA by County of

Kern. P l a i n t i f f and 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

Defendants c o l l e c t i v e un lawfu l a c t i o n s u n t i l and u n l e s s

t h i s C o u r t p r o v i d e s t h e r e l i e f p rayed 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 burden 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 of C a l i f o r n i a , USA i s

sued 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 called Tejon

Mountain V i l l a g e by TMV LLC and Te jon Ranch Company. The

Notice of De te rmina t ion (NOD) was f i l e d on October 13 ,

2009.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

< A0 72

(Rev. 8/82]

Â Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

Defendant, Department of Interior, is sued in its

official capacity as the United States Federal Agency

charged with, among other things, supervising the Bureau

Indian Affairs, the National Parks Service and Federal

Trust responsibilities for Native Americans and Native

American Tribes.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM AS TO DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (as to the Tribe - Omitting a

historic Tribe from the Federal Reqister) Article 1.

Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, Indian

Nonintercourse Act 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 177

Plaintiff repeats and incorporates paragraphs 1

through 18 set forth in the SUMMARY.

The United States Department of Interior breached

their fiduciary duty to the Xawaiisu Tribe of Tejon when,

through administrative oversight, they omitted placing the

tribe's name on the Federal Register.

The Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon is a historic tribe and

shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

2 5

26

-0 72

(Rev. WB2)

? * Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

available to other federally-recognized historic tribes by

virtue of their goverment-to-government relationship with

the United States 25 C.F.R. Sub. Sec. 83.12(a).

This claim meets the criteria of the Indian Commerce

Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution,

where the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon has not been terminated

and the Tribe's reservation has not been terminated.

The claim is made because the Department of Interior

maintains the Trust responsibility over the Kawaiisu Tribe

of Tejon as established by these actions: the United States

Government solicited the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon to sign

Treaty D (EX. 2), 10 June 1851 at Camp Persifer F. Smith on

what is now known as the Tejon Ranch. The US Government

expanded their trust responsibility to the Tribe with the

establishment of the Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation

(EX. 1) on March 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 226 238).

The claim is brought under the Indian Tucker Act,

Trust at Common Law and the Fifth Amendment.

Until the Department of Interior reaffirms the formal

recognition of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon, the Department

of Interior remains in breach of their fiduciary duty as

Trustee of the Tribe.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

U 0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

9 Â Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Simply put,

fiduciaries must exhibit the highest form of trust,

fidelity and confidence, and are expected to act in the

best interest of their clients at all times."

The injury caused to the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon by

omitting the Tribe from the Federal Register is that the

Tribe is unable to act in its official and legal authority

with the County of Kern.

For example, in the case of the Tejon Mountain Village

LLC (TMV LLC) Development, the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon was

not given Notice, by the County of Kern, about the TMV LLC

project, or the preparation of the projects EIR.

With the TMV LLC project, the injury caused is that

the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon is not being brought in under

many of the legal requirements of State CEQA and Federal

NAGPRA regulations such as: participating as a Consultant,

being listed as a Most Likely Descendant, participating in

Archeological surveys, consulting and taking possession

during Repatriation, protection of Sacred Sites and

intellectual property, participating in reburials and

monitoring the development during construction.

* Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

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,-create Tribal 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.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


FIRST CLAIM AUTHORITIES

A r t i c l e 1, Sec t ion 8 , Clause 3, U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , Ind ian

Commerce Clause

June 24, 1924 Ind ian C i t i z e n s h i p Act

January 12, 1891, I 26 S t a t . , 712. T r u s t Continued

18 USC Sec. 1091 Genocide Law

18 USC Sec. 1151 Ind ian Country de f ined

General Assembly Reso lu t ion 217 A (111) I n t e r n a t i o n a l B i l l

of Human Rights , 10 December 1948

Mattz v . A r n e t t 412 U.S. 481 (1973) .

S t a t u t e s a t Large 24, 388-91 General Allotment Act o r D a w e s

A c t ) d iv ided up r e s e r v a t i o n l ands i n t o i n d i v i d u a l l and

ho ld ings f o r t r i b a l members

(10 S t a t . 226 238) March 3, 1853 Sess ion 11, Thirty-Second

Congress e s t a b l i s h e d Te jon jSebas t ian Ind ian Reservaton and

Appropr ia ted $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

t h e Ind ians ... and removing them t o s a i d r e s e r v a t i o n s f o r

p r o t e c t i o n "

(10 S t a t . 686, 699) March 3, 1855

United States v. Washington (1974)

Ind ian Tucker A c t 28 U.S.C. Sub. Sec. 1505

Ind ian T r u s t Doct r ine

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82]


T r u s t a t Common Law

Reserved R igh t s Doctr ine

Congress P lenary Power

F i f t h Amendment T r u s t p rope r ty must n o t be taken without

' j u s t compensation''

Sec t ion 702 of t h e Adminis t ra t ive Procedure A c t . Waives

sovere ign immunity of 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

"seeking r e l i e f o t h e r t han money damages" involv ing a

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 .

I nd i an T r u s t Fund Management Reform A c t of 1994. S e c r e t a r y

of I n t e r i o r must provide adequate account ing.

US v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983) (Mi t che l l 11)

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. ( 5 P e t . ) 1 (1831)

T r i b e s are "denominated domestic, dependant na t ions . "

Worcester v , Georgia, 31 U.S. ( 6 P e t . ) 515 (1832)

United S t a t e s v. Mi t che l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)

Mi t che l l 11)

United S t a t e s v. White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)

Solem v. B a r t l e t t , 465 U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court

he ld " ( a ) Only Congress can d i v e s t an Ind ian r e s e r v a t i o n of

i ts land and d imin ish i ts boundar ies . But Congress must

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. WB2)


c l e a r l y e v i n c e an 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 iminishment w i l l be found."

SECOND CLAIM AS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (as to Tejon/Sebastian Reservation Ceded Map #311)

Article I Section 8 Clause 3, Acts of Congress, Fifth

Amendment 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 1291-1297, Indian


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

th rough 1 8 set f o r t h i n t h e SUMMARY.

The Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon p e t i t i o n s t h e Cour t f o r

emergency r e l i e f t o restore t h e Historic F e d e r a l l y -

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 .

(EXHIBIT #1: L i b r a r y o f Congress Ceded Map #311)

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

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under t h e Uni ted S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ,

A r t i c l e I S e c t i o n 8 Clause 3 , A c t s of Congress , Execu t ive

O r d e r s of t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Uni ted S t a t e s and Supreme

C o u r t r u l i n g s .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

<kA0 72

(Rev. W82)


Before Kern County voted on the Tejon Mountain Village

Development, the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon asked the Kern

County Board of Supervisors to show the Tribe a

Congressional Act that clearly shows intent to remove or

recind the Tejon/Sebastian Reservation. Chairman Robinson

knows this Act does not exist.

Instead, Kern County cited a Supreme Court Case (U. S.

v. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO., 265 U.S. 472 (1924) about

Mexican Ranchos that the County of Kern's own attorney

said, during the televised broadcast, does not mention the

Reservation and does not make clear which Ranchos or

property the case is addressing. This 1924 case lacked a

Cause of Action and even the Justice said that he "assumedw

that there was no claim made for the Disenos by the Tribe.

Quite to the contrary, the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon signed a

treaty in 1851, which met the Claim's Commission

requirements. Furthermore, Tribal members were not citizens

of the U.S. until 1924 and it was the responsibility of the

Department of the Interior to protect and preserve the

Tribes rights and they did not.

The 1924 case still has nothing to do with the

Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservation (EX. 1). The Reservation


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).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

U 0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


SECOND CLAIM AUTHORITIES

Mattz v. A r n e t t 412 U.S. 481 (1973) .


A r t i c l e 1, Sec t ion 8, Clause 3, U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , Ind ian

Commerce Clause

June 24, 1924 Ind ian C i t i z e n s h i p A c t


48 S t a t . 985, 25 U.S.C. Â 465


18 uSC Sec. 1151 Ind ian Country de f ined

Pub l i c Law 85-31, May 16, 1957, S. 998, 7 1 S t a t . 29:

Res to ra t ion of Ind ian Schools t o t r u s t l and

Pub l i c Law 86-634, J u l y 12, 1960, HR4386, 74 S t a t . 469:

I l l e g a l t o d e s t r o y , deface , o r remove boundary markers on

Ind ian Reserva t ions o r t o Tresspass .


of Human Rights , 10 December 1948


Act) d iv ided up r e s e r v a t i o n l ands i n t o i n d i v i d u a l l and

holdings f o r t r i b a l members


Congress e s t a b l i s h e d Te jon /Sebas t ian Ind ian Reservaton and

^A0 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)

Kawaiisu Tribe v. Department of Interior and

Uni ted S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)

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 (2003)

Solem v . Bar t le t t , 465 U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Cour t

h e l d " ( a ) Only Congress 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 boundar ies . 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


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


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 set f o r t h i n t h e SUMMARY.

The Kawaiisu T r i b e of ~ e j o n i 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 of 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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

2 2

23

24

25

26

%A0 72

(Rev. 8/81


Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Sac and Fox Nation , 508 U.S. 114

(1993) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480

U.S. 202, 207 n.5 (1987)

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, Indian

Commerce Clause

June 24, 1924 Indian Citizenship Act

January 12, 1891, I 26 Stat., 712. Trust Continued


18 USC Sec. 1151 Indian Country defined

General Assembly Resolution 217 A (111) International Bill

of Human Rights, 10 December 1948

Statutes at Large 24, 388-91 General Allotment Act or Dawes

Act) divided up reservation lands into individual land

holdings for tribal members

(10 Stat. 226 238) March 3, 1853 Session 11, Thirty-Second

Congress established Tejon/Sebastian Indian Reservaton and

Appropriated $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



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

11

23

24

2 5

26

< A0 72

(Rev. 8/82]


Trust at Common Law




just compensation"





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 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)

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)

Mitchell 11)

United States v. White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)

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

held "(a) Only Congress can divest an Indian reservation of

its land and diminish its boundaries. But Congress must

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

25

26

'&A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


c l e a r l y ev ince an i n t e n t t o change boundar ies b e f o r e

diminishment w i l l be found."

FOURTH CLAIM AS TO THE COUNTY OF KERN

EIR Noncompliance with CEQA and NAGPRA

Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., Public

Resources Code Section 21167.3 (a), CEQA 21167, 21177, Pub.

Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850, 4852 et seq,

Pub. Res. Code 5097.98, Section 21084, 21084.1, Pub. Res.

Code 21083, 21083.2, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,

Hater Code Section 12220

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

through 18 set f o r t h i n t h e SUMMARY.

The EIR f o r Tejon Mountain V i l l a g e , LLC does no t

comply wi th t h e p rov i s ions of CEQA and NAGPRA. This project

known as Tejon Mountain Village (TMV) contains historical

resources that meet the definitions of Pub. Res. Code

section 5020.1 (k) and 5024.1 (g), eligible for listing in,

the California Register of Historical Resources, and

1

I

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1s

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

^A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

Kawaiisu Tribe v.Department of Interior and

requires that the Public Agency must treat the resources as

significant. The site is a Federal Indian Reservation

noticed by California State Registered Landmark No. 133

Dedicated on November 28, 1937. The TMV LLC development

fits all four criteria required for such consideration

Section 21084.1: a) associated with events from

California's historical past, b) associated with lives of

important persons in our past, c) embodies the distinctive

characteristics of a period, region and creative and

artistic values, and d) has yielded and is likely to yield

more information important to pre-Columbian history, pre-

California history and history and 21083.2 (without time

and cost limitations) also contains unique archeological

resources and graves 5097.98.

15064.5 The TMV LLC project will cause substantial

adverse change in the significance of the many historical

resource sites on the property including destruction,

relocation and alteration which will forever remove

eligibility for inclusion in California Register of

Historic Resources. Primary Cultural Intellectual Property

will be erased. The environmental effects will also be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

11

23

24

25

26

<\A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


1

cumulatively considerable. The Secretary of ~nteriors

standards are not being followed.

Pub. Res. Code 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code

Section 7050.5, PRC 21082 contingency funding and time

allotment has not been built into procedures. Additionally,

the mass graves (unmarked cemeteries) have not been

included in the survey and a comprehensive survey of the

property by the Most Likely Descendant has not taken place.

The County of Kern has not asked the project's Native

American Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants

to provide California CDIB Numbers, which is required to

verify their Lineal Descendancy to qualify them to be on

the site.

SB 610 The Water Supply Assessment for this project is

inadequate and does not take into consideration the

aboriginal water rights owned by the Kawaiisu ~ r i b e of

Tejon on all of the Ranchos (a right of occupancy was

guaranteed by Spain, Mexico and the United States forever)

that make up Tejon Ranch Company (United States v.

Washington (1974).

CEQA 21092 and Pub. Res. Code 5097.98 Inadequacy of

Notice to Lineal Descendants and Owners of the Indian


Reserva t ion occur red . The T r i b e should have been t r e a t e d a s

owner/occupants cont iguous to t h e p a r c e l i n 15087(3) . The

Kawaiisu T r i b e o f Tejon was n o t no t i ced about 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. N o E a r l y

Consu l t a t i on o r Scoping p e r 15082 and 15083 took p l ace . The

T r i b e o n l y found o u t about t h e p r o j e c t when see ing 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 appear ing a t t h e

County Chambers f o r ano the r hear ing . T h i s l a c k of n o t i c e on

t h i s p r o j e c t is inexcusab le 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 ike ly

Descendant i n Ind ian Country ranging from Death Val ley t o

San Bernardino t o Ventura to San ta Barbara t o Delano t o

Bake r s f i e ld t o Sherman Pass and back a c r o s s t h e Coso and

Panamint Mountains. Furthermore, as one of t h e t r i b e s he ld

i n s l a v e r y and murdered a t t h e Tejon/Sebast ian Reservat ion

i n rises t o e thnoc ide and genocide t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s and

concerns o f t h e Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon would be ignored 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 for t h e D r a f t

E I R is 81 pages long w i t h ove r 2000 people 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 rope r ty was excluded from t h a t

ma i l i ng list. To make m a t t e r s worse, t h e Tribe d i d n o t

19

20

2 1

'I? -- 23

24

25

26

Kawaiisu Tribe of v. Department of Interior and

r e c e i v e t h e E I R and any p lanning documents u n t i l t h e end of

t h e October 5, 2009 hea r ing , a f t e r t h e v o t e had been taken .

I n t h e T r i b e s letter t o t h e county 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 Appl ican t t o p rov ide documentation of

Termination o f t h e Reservat ion by Congress, o therwise t h e y

were approving a p r o j e c t on Fede ra 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, hea r ing t h e

Appl icant had n o t provided 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 voted t o approve t h e Project

anyway. This development h a s now been approved on Fede ra l

Ind ian T r u s t Land.

During t h e O c t . 5, 2009, Pub l i c Testimony o t h e r local

Nat ive 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

des t royed and scattered on t h e Tejon Ranch Proper ty some

y e a r s b e f o r e and t h e y had been con tac t ed t o assess t h e

s i te . T h i s w a s t h e f i r s t t ime t h a t t h e Kawaiisu T r i b e o f

Tejon had heard about it and even t h e Lead Kern County

P lanner acknowledged t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t had occur red . No one

gave n o t i c e t o t h e Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon or t h e Coroner

when t h i s v i o l a t i o n occurred. Pub l i c Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C.

3001 e t seq. P u b l i c Law 86-634, July 12, 1960, HR4386, 74


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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

"11

23

24

25

2 6

< A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


The US Department of Defense maintains a low-level

flight path over the project and was not noticed. CEQA

21098, 21080.4, 21092

CEQA Section 21167 and 21108 (a) The Oct 5, 2009 vote

by the Board of Supervisors initiates the firsts step in

comprehensive zoning changes and general plan approvals

based on information contained in the various environmental

review documents submitted by Tejon Ranch Company, Tejon

Mountain Village LLC and Kern County Planning. This

Complaint is timely filed within the 30 day filing

requirement for public agency decisions. Furthermore, some

of the land is even still under the Williamson Act for two

more years and is being included in the zoning and General

Plan overhaul, even though that technically cannot happen.

Foremost, the land in contention has been and is still open

space, and has been that way since before Europeans arrived

in this country.

CEQA Section 21177(15112 (C)(5)) The Tribe exhausted

it's administrative remedies by delivering a 50 page

hindered document to the Planning Department on August 13,

2009, five weeks before the Kern County Planning Commission

met on the project. In that document the Tribe lodged its


ob jec t ions and indica ted t h e var ious reasons why t h e

p r o j e c t should not be approved. Among t h e content ions w e r e

t h a t t h e Tr ibe had not been not iced on t h e P ro jec t , t h a t

Most Likely Descendant r egu la t ions had been ignored and

t h a t t h e P ro jec t is being developed on land t h a t is Federal

Land, t h e Indian Reservation of t h e Kawaiisu Tribe of

Tejon. The Tr ibe de l ivered t h e document by way of t h e

Publ ic Comment per iod during a Planning Commission Hearing

and gave t h e Clerk audibly t h e Tr ibes Mailing Address* The

Planning Department d i d not fol low 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

Tribe. The EIR should have been mailed t o t h e Tr ibe , and a

walking survey of t h e acreage should have been scheduled

and t h e review per iod extended f o r 90 days as requested.

CEQA Sect ion 21177 The Tribe a d d i t i o n a l l y exhausted

i t ' s admin i s t r a t ive remedies by f i l i n g another letter and

video with t h e Board of Supervisors t h e week before t h e i r

hearing and appearing i n person and submit t ing one more

w r i t t e n record of 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 again lodged i t s ob jec t ions 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 with regard t o t h e Sacred

S i t e s on t h e proper ty , Host Likely Descendant Notice and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

f f --

23

24

25

26

%A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


t h a t t h e P ro jec t cannot be developed on t h e Federal Land

t h a t is t h e T r i b e ' s Indian Reservation.

I t should be noted t h a t t h e r e were only 13 days between

t h e Kern County Planning Commission hearing ( 3 t o 2 vo te )

and t h e Board of Supervisors hearing on t h i s p r o j e c t . This

shortened t i m e made it impossible f o r an i n t e r n a l County

Appeal.

Viola t ion of CEQA 21091, 30 Day Review Period.

The Kawaiisu Tr ibe of Tejon w a s no t given a copy of t h e E I R

and Planning Department documents u n t i l a f t e r t h e October

5, 2009 Board of Supervisor hearing f i n i s h e d a t 4:30pm and

t h e vote had a l r eady been concluded i n support of t h e

Project.

21157.6 Viola t ion of E I R f i v e year l i m i t ; Kern County

approved t h e EIR f o r t h i r t y years .

County of Kern, State of California is using Native

American Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants

for Kern County EIR/EIS projects who do not hold a

California Certified Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB)

certificate issued by the Department of Interior and do not

meet the legal geneology requirements to serve in the

official capacities for CEQA and NAGPRA. This violation


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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

2 2

23

24

25

26

U 0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


FIFTH CLAIM AS TO THE COUNTY OF KERN

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment



Defendant Kern County discriminated against the

Kawaiisu Tribe by denying, on account of religion, equal

protection under the law.

Many of the rights Tejon Ranch Corporation and TMV LLC

enjoy today in the State of California and the United

States derive from the same Fourteenth Amendment yet those

two Corporations and an assortment of Not-for-Profit

Corporations were deferred to and treated preferentially

rather than treated equally in the project approval and

CEQA process.

In the case of meeting the standard for equal

protection when undertaking a resort development as wide

reaching as the development in question, the public agency,

in this case Lead Agency Kern County, must show no

favoritism. The public agency must exhaustively research,

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

7 - 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

2 6

QAO 72

(Rev. 8/82)


Tribe produced a ten minute video to provide an easy to

understand historical summary of the property and the

Kawaiisu Tribal claim to the property and posted it on the

internet on September 30, 2009.

Defendant retaliated in two ways that Plaintiff knows

of: 1) by calling Plaintiff, Chairman David Laughing Horse

robin son"^ place of work, the California State University,

Bakersfield and trying to get him fired. Additionally, on

Thursday, October 1, 2009, a Kern County Planning

Department employee was quoted in the primary County paper

(EXHIBIT #5) as follows saying, "the land was never a

formal reservation for the Kawaiisu tribe but only a shared

habitation area for several tribes of native people." By

these actions Defendants attempted to suppress the Kawaiisu

Tribes free exercise and free speech rights and not treat

the Tribe equally as an interested Agency or Corporation.

The Kawaiisu Tribe has several thousand years of

expertise as a Government - to - Government agency and consultant on the Cultural Resources on their aboriginal

lands. Defendants recurring policy of not noticing the

Kawaiisu Tribe about projects on the Tribe's aboriginal

land exhibits prejudice and demonstrates an ethnocentric

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

it

23

24

25

26

fsA0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


approach to applying the laws of the United States and the

State of California. Public Law 86-634, July 12, 1960,

HR4386, 74 Stat. 469

It should be noted that testimony at the Oct. 5, 2009

hearing indicated that four of the five Kern County

Supervisors received political donations from Tejon Ranch

during the project development process.

The undisputed material facts demonstrate that

Defendants have violated the Equal Protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment by impinging on Plaintiff's free

exercise and free speech rights and by intentionally

discriminating against the Tribe because of the Tribe's

religion and ethnicity.

FIFTH CLAIM AUTHORITIES

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[1], United

States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral

on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner,

is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the

Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Stanley Matthews wrote:

"These provisions are universal in their application, to

all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without

regard to any differences of race, of color, or of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

77 -- 23

24

25

26

tiA0 72

(Rev. 8182)


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 of t h e l a w s i s a

p l e d g e of t h e p r o t e c t i o n of e q u a l laws." H e also no ted t h a t

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

h o l d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of t h e l a w l iable when t h e y abused

t h e i r a u t h o r i t y .

H i r a b a y a s h i v. Uni ted S t a t e s (320 US 81, 1943) Cour t

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

because 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 od ious

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

d o c t r i n e of e q u a l i t y . For t h a t r e a s o n , l e g i s l a t i v e

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

o f t e n been h e l d t o be a d e n i a l of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n . "

S h e l l e y v. K r a e m e r , 334 U.S. 1, (1948) The Cour t found

t h a t , a l t h o u g h a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t c o u l d n o t

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 '

enforcement of such a c o n t r a c t c o u l d : a f t e r a l l , because

t h e c o u r t s w e r e p a r t of t h e state.

(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 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 ibes and p r o v i d e

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

s t e p s i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a n EIS, i n c l u d i n g : Coopera t ing

a g e n c i e s - When t h e e f f e c t s of a proposed a c t i o n may o c c u r


"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 non-federal 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 is reasonably 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 agenc ies 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 agenc ies and Ind ian t r i b e s . Id . Â

1501.2(d) , This requirement a p p l i e s whether NEPA

compliance involves an EIS o r and EA and FONSI.

A r t i c l e 1, Sec t ion 8 , Clause 3, U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , Ind ian

Commerce Clause

June 24, 1924 Ind ian C i t i z e n s h i p A c t



18 USC Sec. 1151 Ind ian Country de f ined


of Human R igh t s , 10 December 1948

Mattz v. A r n e t t 412 U.S. 481 (1973) .


A c t ) d iv ided up r e s e r v a t i o n l ands i n t o i n d i v i d u a l l and

ho ld ings f o r t r i b a l members


Congress e s t a b l i s h e d Tejon/Sebast ian Ind ian Reservaton and

Appropr ia ted $250,000 "to d e f r a y t h e expense 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

p r o t e c t i o n "

( 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. Sec . 1505

I n d i a n T r u s t D o c t r i n e

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 of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t . Waives

s o v e r e i g n immunity of 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 or 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 of 1994. S e c r e t a r y

of 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 (1983) ( M i t c h e l l 11)

Cherokee Na t ion v . Georgia , 30 U.S. ( 5 P e t . ) 1 (1831)

T r i b e s are "denominated domes t i c , dependant n a t i o n s . "

Worcester v. Georgia , 31 U.S. ( 6 P e t . ) 515 (1832)

1

? .. 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

?? - - 23

24

25

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8\82)

9 Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)

Mitchell 11)

United States v. White Mountain Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)

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

held "(a) Only Congress can divest an Indian reservation of

its land and diminish its boundaries. But Congress must

clearly evince an intent to change boundaries before

diminishment will be found."

SIXTH CLAIM AS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment



The Department of Interior has not treated the

Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon in an equal manner to other

historic federally-recognized Tribes in the United States.

The Department of Interior violated their

Constitutional Responsibilities by listing other Tribes as

Historic Federally-Recognized Tribes and not listing the

Q Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and

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 , Moni tors and b r i n g s i n Most L i k e l y

Descendants , t h e Department of I n t e r i o r is 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 of t h e p e o p l e used 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

CDIB Numbers i s s u e d by t h e Department of 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 fo l lowed because

of t h e a c t i o n s of t h e Department of I n t e r i o r and t h e

Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon 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 worse , t h e County of 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 remains o f o u r Ancestors.

104 STAT. 3048, P u b l i c Law 101-601

The Department of I n t e r i o r i s g u i l t y of Genocide,

E thnoc ide , and T h e f t o f T r i b a l Economic Resources w i t h o u t

due p r o c e s s . The Kawaiisu T r i b e o f Te jon needs hous ing f o r

o u r homeless t r i b a l members, menta 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 abuse 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 rate of d y s l e x i a which l e a d s many

t o d r o p o u t of s c h o o l because 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 ibe and o f t e n have t o p r a c t i c e o u r

r e l i g i o n , l anguage 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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 I

22

23

24

25

26

^A0 72

(Rev. 8182)


These conditions increase the rate of depression in the

community.

The actions of the Department of Interior keeps us at

a poverty level that makes it impossible to address the

needs of our tribal community in the way that they should

be.

SIXTH CLAIM AUTHORITIES

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371

(1980) Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.

Fifth Amendment 25 U.S.C.S. Sub. Sec. 1291-1297


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, Indian

Commerce Clause

June 24, 1924 Indian Citizenship Act

January 12, 1891, I 26 Stat., 712. Trust Continued


18 USC Sec. 1151 Indian Country defined

General Assembly Resolution 217 A (111) International Bill

of Human Rights, 10 December 1948

Mattz v. Arnett 412 U.S. 481 (1973).

1

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

2 4

25

26

%A0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


Statutes at Large 24, 388-91 General Allotment Act or Dawes

Act) divided up reservation

holdings for tribal members

(10 Stat. 226 238) March 3,

Congress established Tejon/St

lands into individual land

1853 Session 11, Thirty-Second

ebastian Indian Reservaton and

Appropriated $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

United S t a t e s v. Washington (1974)



Trust at Common Law




'just compensationw





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

25

26

%A0 72

(Rev. U82)


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

of I n t e r i o r must p r o v i d e adequa te accoun t ing .

US v . M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983) itchel ell 11)

Cherokee Na t ion v . Georgia , 30 U.S. ( 5 P e t . ) 1 (1831)

T r i b e s are "denominated domes t i c , dependant n a t i o n s . "

Worcester v . Georg ia , 3 1 U.S. ( 6 P e t . ) 515 (1832)

Uni ted S t a t e s v. M i t c h e l l , 463 U.S. 206, 219 (1983)

M i t c h e l l 11)

Uni ted S t a t e s v . White ~ o u n t a i n Apache 537 U.S. 465 (2003)

Solem v. Bartlett , 465 U.S. 463 (1984) U.S. Supreme Cour t

h e l d " ( a ) Only Congress 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 of

i ts l a n d and d i m i n i s h i t s boundar ies . 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


( C E Q ) , 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

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

f o r tribes 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

p r e p a r a t i o n of a n EIS, i n c l u d i n g : Coopera t ing a g e n c i e s -

When t h e e f f e c t s of a proposed a c t i o n may o c c u r "on a

r e s e r v a t i o n " a n I n d i a n t r ibe , by agreement w i t h t h e lead

federal agency, may become a c o o p e r a t i n g agency and have a

direct role 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§

Kawaiisu Tribe of tfbn v. Department of Interior and ~ o u m f em, 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 Ind ian tribe" t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e scoping

process for an EIS. Id . Â 1501.7.Commenting on an E I S -

The l ead agency must i n v i t e comments on a d r a f t E I S f r o m

Ind ian t r i b e s "when t h e e f f e c t s may be on a r e se rva t ion . "

Id . Â 1503.l(a)(2).Environmental consequences - When an

agency p repa re s an 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 nc lude

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 Fede ra l , r e g i o n a l , S t a t e , and

l o c a l (and i n t h e case of a r e s e r v a t i o n , Ind ian t r i b e ) l and

use 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 1502.16(c) .Publ ic involvement - Whenever an agency

providespubl ic n o t i c e of a NEPA-related hear ing , pub l i c

meeting, o r t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of 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 Ind ian t r i b e s "when

e f f e c t s may occur 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

response 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 reasonably 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 agenc ies t o promptly c o n s u l t wi th state and

a Kawaiisu Tribe of v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

< A0 72

(Rev. 8/82]

9 * Kawaiisu Tribe of ejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

a copy of the Federal Register stating such in 60 days to

this court.

Order DO1 to include in the Federal Register a

statement of the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon's "Indian Countryw

as defined by Library of Congress California Cession Map

#286.

Order DO1 to restore the 75,000 acre Tejon/Sebastian

Indian Reservation as Trust lands of the Kawaiisu Tribe of.

Tejon.

Order DO1 to restore the Tejon/Sebastian Indian

Reservation School Building and land as Trust property of

the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon. (Public Law 85-31, May 16,

1957, S. 998, 71 Stat. 29)

Order DO1 to restore to Trust status the Kawaiisu

allotments that were sold without approval and other

illegal means of transfer of Tribal Indian land.

Order DO1 to provide an accounting of accrued revenues

from resources extracted from the Tejon/Sebastian Indian

Reservation (oil, minerals, water, agricultural, leases).

Order DO1 to provide compensation for services not

rendered by the BIA $150,000,000.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

2 6

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82)


Order DO1 to provide compensation for accrued revenues

from resource extraction on the Tejon/Sebastian Indian

Reservation $1,500,000,000.

Order DO1 to provide compensation for pain and

suffering $3,000,000,000.

Order County of Kern, State of California to establish

and incorporate a policy into their County General Plan and

County Statutes requiring that all Native American

Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants working

on Kern County projects must present a California Certified

Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) certificate issued by the

Department of Interior and registered with the National

Parks Service and Native American Heritage Commission.

Order DO1 to remove jurisdiction from the Native

American Heritage Commission to determine California Most

Likely Descendants and return that jurisdiction to the

National Parks Service. Require DO1 to work with the

National Parks Service to establish and incorporate a

policy requiring all California Native American

Consultants, Monitors and Most Likely Descendants working

on California projects to present a California Certified

Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) certificate from the DOI.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

2 5

26

-0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

Â Kawaiisu Tribe of v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

Require that the new policy incorporate training and

oversight, before previous authorities or jurisdictions are

returned by the National Parks Service to the California

Native American Heritage Commission. Require DO1 to enforce

that the California Native American Heritage Commission

maintains the required five (of nine) California ~ndians on

the Commission, verified by California CDIB at time of

nomination.

Order County of Kern to adopt the Federal Standards

for the treatment of Sacred Sites and Indigenous

Intellectual Property; that Sacred Sites are equal to

Intellectual Property and are to be completely avoided and

not covered with dirt or textile matting. That the County

of Kern acknowledge, in writing, that the Tejon Mountain

Village Applicant does "not" own the "remainsff of the

Kawaiisu Tribal people or the artifacts found in and around

the graves, that the total of those items will be

repatriated to the Tribe when discovered. Order that County

of Kern will revise the Tejon Mountain Village EIR and also

adopt a County-wide policy adopting new procedures.

Order a Federal Court Review of the proceedings of the

1924 TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. case as it pertains to the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

QA0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

Â Â Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

existence of an Indian Reservation, the fact that the

Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon signed a Treaty on the property and

made a claim to the property within the deadline of the

California Land Claims Commission and the five rancho

disenos presented that make up Tejon Ranch.

Dated: November 8, 2009 Respectfully Submitted,

c David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 1547 Kernville, CA 93238 Telephone: (661) 378-1085

Attorney for Plaintiff, Pro Se Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon

LIST OF EXHIBITS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS

EX. 1: Map #311 (75,000 Acre Tejon/Sebastian Reservation)

EX. 2: Map #286 (20 Million Acre Kawaiisu Indian Country)

EX. 3: Fr. Francisco Garces Diseno Map for the Kawaiisu

EX. 4: Kawaiisu Tribe names, 1905 Handbook/American Indians

EX. 5: Bakersfield Californian article, Oct. 1, 2009

EX. 6: 1905 Handbook of American Indians Cover Page

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

QA0 72

(Rev. 8/82)

e Kawaiku Tribe of Tejon v. Department of Interior and County of Kern, CA

EX. 7 : Bureau of Ethnology Congressional Transmittal Page

EX. 8: Fr. Francisco Garces Full Size Map

EX. 9: Treaty D , June 1 0 , 1 8 5 1

EX. 10:1877 Map

EX. 11: Reservation Historical Landmark #I33

EX. 1 2 : March 3, 1853 Reservation Approved

EX. 13: Oct. 1 9 , 1 8 5 7 Congressional Globe-Five Reservations

EX. 14: Letter to Planning Department August 13, 2 0 0 9

EX. 1 5 : Letter to Board of Supervisors September 2 8 , 2 0 0 9

E X . 1 6 : Letter/Statement read at BOS hearing Oct. 5, 2 0 0 9

EX. 17: Ten Minute VIDEO ON DVD (and YOU TUBE)

ox, pt. A, LLL, JL~YU. 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 ~Ghachapi rnta., 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-w i 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:

Y kuts name). Kawishm.-Kroeber. inf'n. - ; batulabal name). Kow-6'-sah.-S Kubakhye.-Kroeber, inf'n, 1905 ( I Xewoof-a$.-Merriam, op.cit. (=* p Colteches.-Garcte, op. cit., 295, 3"- vw a 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 k them to the T-Z? - - - -4; T,.-.,-- n7 n<- - Â¥ 1 . t

EX. 4

BY JAMES BURGER C a U f d a n s td t writer [email protected]

David laughing Horse Robinson, an elder of the Kawaiisu tribe of Native Americans, has launched a unique challenge to the controversial Tejon Mountain Viage project on the eve of a critical hearing before the Kern County Board of Su ervisors.

Eobinson, who works as an instructional technician 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 and its partner are - . proposing to buildTejon MountainVdlage. ' How- To Go- . ,

It is m e d , he s tate in ' -',

ayoumbe dm & & 1 The Board of Supe~isors len *ng the pmjmt, by

'

will meet on the Tejon 1

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. . -'*.The ffityajisu pibe.- - . +. F I .

has clear ownership of * - -

tbeTejon-Sebastian reservation," 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 IiStxVaQOn ? or the Katvaiisu tribe but o d a shared habita- I!" &n for several tribes of native peop c.

Tejon3 ownership of the property has not been chal- lmgeci by native groups previously, she said, and munty d ~ t h the Nahve American Heritage Commission in 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 pmous) time," Oviatt sai tfkfe have 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-a p t - ed, private deveiopment on 26,417 a c m in the mountam 1 between Bakersfield and h s An eles.

"We w3l respectfully take Mr. faupg ~ o r s e ~obhmn ' s 1 comments to the board: (Matt sai

HANDBOOK

ERICA NORTH OF MEXICO

FREDERICK W E B B H O D G E ,

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

BUXEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY, Wiash7,'71,yt0,77, D. C., J d y I, 1905,

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~pleted for 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~ics bj- m~lljch- these have been known, together with biogi=aphies of Indians of tiote, sketches of their l~istorv, - archeology, manners, arts, customs, a,nd institutions, md

?amp Perstfer F. Smith

California State Military Department

The California State Military Museum Preserving Cal~orniuts Miiitary Heritage

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

Camp Perstfer F. Smith a 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

Casta ke:

RAFAEL, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.] FRANCISCO, his x mark. [SEAL.] MANUEL, his x mark. [SEAL.]

1 San Imirio:

JOSE MARIA, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.] FRANCISCO, his x mark. [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 ablished a 238 T,~RTYRTY-SECON CONGRESS. Sesa. 11. Cn. 104. 1853.

For twCD<7-s~nd of 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. 8n of the treaty of the flIUxnth of September, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, two t h o ~ d fivehundred 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 l ire per centurn, ~ti 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 ~ ~ ~ ih~~iid sow, the sum of tfaita t110~mnd dei-

lara may bo used in snch manner na (ho Secretary of tho Interior may dctm necessary for snbsbtcnce and r ing pence with said Indinns.

pa-. SKuceQiuwout. -For payment o tho 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?. ^ate,, fir expenses i n a i m by limn iu q~tcliing the

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 ht t tby bolted to mÃ§t fire niili~ry e ~ ~ ~ 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 c ~ bordering 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~ilsiating tho 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 ktifbnia i b d be tlicraupn cbuluhed.

u q ~ ~ ~ w SKC. 2. And &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

*Ã 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'shing tho 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 i iwncp in die T-ury not o l h e r w h npproprinied.

$KC. 8. And. 6tt it f w r t A ~ r enacted, 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, or part of a tTibe, but &hail in every we be (Wd directly to tho Indim or Ind inn~ lbcnuclvcs to whom i t hall bo fine, or to the iribo or 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 i l ia payment to bo made ~lberwiae, under the ~ p w i n i direelion 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 matÃ n<* * 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 x hundred 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~immissionftr of 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~ed Stntcs, 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 $ m g z f ~

~/i(AtTVwupCTtott lXl^/A)OfcifÃ‡r Marcha,IS&a. dm'y (k fuel imrashtyt!ÃˆItuUfS

.Dc i t e n d fy the Senate and of h%prtfeatatiw of the United Slulei of Jfnurica in C' u~~~ lht the; folhwing iuras bo ~pixopria~aa). and the same am hereby appropriated, to be id out of miy tflonisy in tke Treasury not otherwiic appropriated, for t r e p r onding tlit t l i irti i~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;

T nation of tho mails from H a w Yo* to Xcw Orleans, CbacucB,&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 a sail 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 are hereby, appropriated for the acnvice of 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 . .. - . a s - - - 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 t ' e must 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 submitted themselves to tins beneficent plan for tlicir ireserviition and improvement. A most repre- Iiensiblc practice has prcv:iilcd to some e.xten t in Ctiliforniii of kidnapping Indian children anti sell- ii:~g idem for servants. This practice has been

, Ã 1 . * . .

- To:

Attn :

Re:

a Kern County Planning Department 2700 M street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Craig M. Murphy, Supervising Planner

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 21 8R; 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, 11 15 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) 378-1 085, 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 1 966 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 11 15 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." Is 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 at 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 I hereby reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks through verbal or written standards to the Kern County Board of Supervisors. I also 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

1970 California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) 1969 National Environmental Policy Act 1968 Indian Bill of Rights 1966 National 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.

I am here to ask you not to approve the Tejon Mountain Vi Development.

llage

First the NAGPRA AND CEQA Notice requirements for lineal Native American descendants has not been met. That means I was 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 I had 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? I found out about this project by accident, when I attended 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. I am 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 at 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.

I am 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 I stated early on, I was not given proper notice on this project and have only been able to provide you with a small sample of the documentation I have to make my claim.

I request 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 I will 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

Documents

Transcript of Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon v Ken Salazar