TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION JOHN TOMMY ROSAS TRIBAL LITIGATOR578 WASHIGTON BLVD # 384 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292Mr. Joseph Montoya,We are now objecting and opposing your/US NAVY illegal defective determinations as published in

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Notices -We were illegally excluded and illegally not contacted for required tribal consultation under SEC 106 NHPA, NAGPRA, AIRFA,NEPA.We are on the NAHC contact list and the US NAVY either illegally did not contact NAHC for the ISLANDS descendant of which I am a lineal descendant or US NAVY committed statutory discrimination in excluding me/TATTN on any consultations and notices, in which we object and oppose

TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION
JOHN TOMMY ROSAS
TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR
TRIBAL LITIGATOR
578 WASHIGTON BLVD # 384 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292
TATTNLAW@GMAIL.COM   310 570 6567


Mr. Joseph Montoya,

We are now objecting and opposing your/US NAVY illegal defective determinations as published in
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Notices -
We were illegally excluded and illegally not contacted for required tribal consultation under SEC 106 NHPA, NAGPRA, AIRFA,NEPA.

We are on the NAHC contact list and the US NAVY either illegally did not contact NAHC for the ISLANDS descendant of which I am a lineal descendant or US NAVY committed statutory discrimination in excluding me/TATTN on any consultations and notices, in which we object and oppose.

We also assume Laura Miranda a NAHC staff person and a Pechanga claimed member may have illegally interfered with the process as the notice does not describe how the US NAVY suddenly gave sole consultation to Pechanga-

We also take offense and exception on the US NAVY'S erroneous assumptions on these determinations all of which we object and oppose to completely as false and defective. quote-
/// Determinations Made by the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy Officials of the U.S. Department of Defense,

Department of the Navy have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(

We also take offense and exception on the US NAVY'S erroneous assumptions on these determinations all of which we object and oppose to completely as false and defective. quote-
/// Determinations Made by the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy Officials of the U.S. Department of Defense,

Department of the Navy have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 469 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 436 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California.

The claim of the "protestors" cannot be properly represented by the OHA as it is a state agency set up to neuter all such claims in protection of the royal land trusts/the state/the public.

COMMENTS

(3)

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.

Leave a comment

Name: pechanga

Comment: 

manakuke wrote:

Special sacred places must be respected.

on April 9,2015 | 03:49AM

Mythman wrote:

Actually, it's not all that complex: it is a simple, straightforward legal question at most, the rest is added on. Whatever one wants to label it, the land use issue involves the real fact that the folks "protesting" are descendants of Hawaiians who used to own the Mauna Kea land and all the land making up the present state of Hawaii. That ownership is recognized in federal law as they had what is known as "Indian land title" - that is, they had a kind of deed even if it was not recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances. This deed is acknowledged by the US. However, in Hawaii, alone among all the states now, this deed is only symbolically respected, not actually considered in land disputes. Now this is interesting: the way this happened turns out pursuant to Rice and other precedents to have been unconstitutional. As such it is reversible, leaving the issues actually undetermined as such. The claim of the "protestors" cannot be properly represented by the OHA as it is a state agency set up to neuter all such claims in protection of the royal land trusts/the state/the public.

on April 9,2015 | 04:22AM

Mythman wrote:

Oops, turns out to be UNconstitional, not constitutional, sorry for the confusion....

on April 9,2015 | 04:24AM