Board of Indian Appeals, Office of Hearings and …californiavalleymiwok.com/2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory.pdf · U.S. Department of the Interior Arlington, Virginia ... Burley which

Board of Indian Appeals, Office of Hearings and AppealsU.S. Department of the Interior

Arlington, Virginia

Respondent

Clayton Gregory, Regional Director BIAMay 29, 2006

Dated January 6, 2006 Appellants

Clayton Gregory, Regional DirectorPutative Member ClassRegarding A Directive FromCalifornia), Yakima Dixie, and the

NOTICE OF APPEAL 1Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California (formerly the Sheep RanchCalifornia Valley Miwok Tribe,

By authority vested in Chadd Everone, as Deputy for the Appellants 2, and in Velma WhiteBear,as Executive Director for the Tribe 3, this Notice of Appeal is, hereby, submitted to the InteriorBoard of Indian Appeals, according to the instructions from Dale Risling (the Acting RegionalDirector for the Pacific Regional Office of the BIA) in his memorandum of May 18, 2006 -Exhibit 10 (2006-05-18).

Because there is a pending court case in which this particular matter that is being appealed maybe an issue4, we request an immediate confirmation that this Appeal has been lodged and isunder the adjudication of the IBIA.

This Appeal to the IBIA is constructed pursuant to the rules in 25 CFR §2.9 et seq. and 43 CFRPart 4 (Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures) Subpart B (General Rules Applicable toProceedings on Appeal Before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals) § 4.310-4.340. Copies of

2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory

1

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

4 Superior Court of California - Sacramento; case #05AS05385; Complaint in Interpleader; California Gambling Control Commission v. Sylvia Burley; Yakima Dixie; Dequita Boire; and Velma WhiteBear.

3 Tribal Resolution #2005-06-08-e

2 Appointment by Yakima Dixie #2003-12-12 and Tribal Resolution #2006-1-12

1 To facilitate referral of this document, it has been posted on the Internet in two formats. In pdf format, it is posted as: {http://www.federatedtribes.com/yakima/2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory.pdf }; and in html format with active links to the exhibits, it is posted as: { http://www.federatedtribes.com/yakima/2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory.html }.

this Appeal have been sent to all Interested Parties 1. The Appeal is timely filed and directed tothe Board of Indian Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior,801 North Quincy St., Arlington, Virginia 222032.

CHRONOLOGY OF PRIMARY EVENTS

As part of a long series of events (See Background, infra), on December 29, 2005,Superintendent, Troy Burdick, of the BIA Central California Agency, issued a letter to SilviaBurley which rejected her submittal of the PL 93-638 contract (a.k.a. the Burdick Determination)- see Exhibit 1 (2005-12-29). On January 6, 2006, this Determination was over-ruled by theRegional Director of the BIA, Clayton Gregory (a.k.a. the Gregory Directive) - see Exhibit 2(2006-01-06). Although the Appellants to this Appeal were known to be Interested Parties inthis matter, they were never informed of either the Burdick Determination nor the GregoryDirective and only recently obtained, indirectly, the documentation of these events. On March29, 2006, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the Regional Director, requesting that hisDirective be rescinded and that the Burdick Determination be reinstated - see Exhibit 9. OnMay 18, 2006, the Acting Regional Director, Dale Risling, directed the Appellants to submit theissue to the Board of Indian Appeals (see Exhibit 10); and accordingly, this action is being filed.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

The following Statement of Reasons for this Appeal may be amended or augmented with otherpleadings, based upon forth-coming appeal proceedings.

The Directive of January 6, 2006 by Clayton Gregory, Regional Director of the BIA, should berescinded and the Determination of December 29, 2005 by Troy Burdick, Superintendent of theBIA, should be reinstated because of the following reasons.

1) The Gregory Directive substantially interferes with and adversely effects theorganization of the Tribe as was mandated in the Olsen Determination ofFebruary 11, 2005 that directed Yakima Dixie to resolve the dispute in tribalauthority by organizing the Tribe and which is now proceeding forward in anorderly and tangible manner.

2) The Gregory Directive may cause unnecessary confusion in the InterpleaderMotion that will be heard in Superior Court in the near future, by introducingambiguity about who is the legitimate authority for the Tribe.

3) Director Gregory, in his Directive, did not provide any rationale for hisdecision, stating only: "It (i.e., the Burdick Determination) was in error to returnthe contract without action". The Gregory Directive is, consequently, arbitraryand capricious for failure to state with particularity the basis for reversing theBurdick Determination; and it might constitute what is commonly called an"underground ruling".


2

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243 2 43 CFR Part 4 § 4.332 (a).

1 43 CFR Part 4 § 4.310 (b)(1).

4) The original Burdick Determination was, in fact, proper for the various reasonsenunciated in this Appeal - most notably that the BIA does not recognize, at thistime, an authority for this tribe that is sufficiently qualified to receive such fundsand that the distribution of 638 funds to Silvia Burley adversely effects theon-going organization of the Tribe, as mandated by the BIA in the OlsenDetermination. (To conjecture, if the position of Director Gregory were that towithhold 638 funds would constitute a "denial of services" to the Tribe and,therefore, give credence to the notion, as promulgated by Ms. Burley in her suitthat is now on appeal, that the Tribe has been terminated and restored, then thatwould be an incorrect posture on the part of the Director. The Appellants areinformed, by a credible source, that the BIA has, in the past, withheld 638 fundsto a number of tribes when one is currently "not in compliance" for any one of anumber of reasons, including not being properly organized1.

5) The Appellants, here, were not notified about the Gregory Directive and,therefore, were not given an opportunity to make their position known before thatDirective became effective. Thus, the Gregory Directive was not properlypromulgated.

In terms of practical matters, the distribution of the current 638 funds was not necessary forSilvia Burley to proceed in her efforts to organize the Tribe to the extent that she may be doingso - she has ample money from prior 638 grants, which was not used for that purpose, and morethan ample money in reserve from the distributions from California's Indian Gaming RevenueSharing Trust Fund (RSTF) which is administered by the California Gambling ControlCommission. See Exhibit 3 (2006-01-19), which is Ms. Burley's letter to Judge Robertson inCase #: 1:05-cv-00739-JR wherein she states: "... we as a Tribe have decided not to distribute outmoneys (from the revenue sharing) to the five Tribal members ...". Assuming that Ms. Burley'sstatement to Judge Robertson is true, then she would have to have more than $4 million at herimmediate disposal.

In sum, the Gregory Determination was defective in both a procedural and substantive manner; itwas not necessary in terms of covering the expenses of tribal organization; if the funds have beenconveyed improperly, then it will have caused additional, irreparable harm to the members of theorganization which eventually emerges; and it has a counter productive effect on theorganization of the Tribe (as mandated by the BIA) and in litigation that recently commenced bythe California Gambling Control Commission to determine the proper recipient of the Tribe'sshare of the RSTF moneys, a hearing on which will be conducted in state court on June 15, 2006.

\


3

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

1 viz. Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of Sulphur Bank Rancheria, California; Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians of California; Pit River Tribe, California; and Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California.

BACKGROUND

The issue of who is the legitimate authority for the Tribe (i.e., California Valley Miwok Tribe,California - formerly the Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California) has beenunder formal dispute by Yakima Dixie and the other individuals in the "Putative Member Class"since December 1999. At first, the Appeal was made by Yakima Dixie alone, as the hereditaryChief. Then, the Appeal became a matter of three tribal members who would qualify as"Putative Members" according to the criteria embedded in the Tillie Hardwick Decree and aswere enunciated in the Golding Declaration of April 30, 2004 (not provided here but on file withthe BIA). Finally, the Putative Member Class has been expanded to the organizing membershipas cited in the recently adopted, tribal Constitution - see Exhibit 4 (2006-02-18) Part 7. Thedetails of the dispute in authority are a matter of extensive record; the Regional Director isfamiliar with the proceedings; and a detailed recitation does not need to be made here. There isover-whelming evidence that Silvia Burley should not be recognized by the BIA as an authorityfor the Tribe or even a as representative of the Tribe for any purpose. However, the Tribe, in itsrecent Constitution1, did acknowledge that Ms. Burley is a member because, in fact, YakimaDixie did adopt her into the Tribe, as was his prerogative under traditional organization. (Undertraditional organization, it would also be his prerogative to dismiss her from being a person ofresponsibility, which he did do some time ago. And by tradition, it would further be hisprerogative to dis-enroll Silvia Burley; but he has elected to not do so, even though Ms. Burleyhas made an unauthorized and ineffectual attempt to dis-enrolled him.)

On February 11, 2005, the Appeal process of Yakima Dixie culminated in a letter ofdetermination by Michael Olsen (then, Principle Deputy, Acting Assistant Secretary - IndianAffairs) who rejected Mr. Dixie's Appeal on the grounds that his filing was moot (because SilviaBurley is not recognized to be the Chairperson) and the action was improperly filed. Further,Mr. Olsen Determined that there could not be any legitimate resolution to this dispute by anintra-tribal forum, and it would have to be resolved within the jurisdiction of the BIA. Andfinally, he directed Mr. Dixie, by himself or with other members, to resolve the matter of tribalauthority by formally organizing the Tribe under the auspices of the BIA.

Soon after the Olsen Determination, Mr. Dixie initiated the organizational process with theauthorities at the Central California Agency, which was the venue that was designated in theOlsen Determination. Because the Olsen Determination stated that the BIA did not recognizeeither Silvia Burley or Yakima Dixie or anyone as the Chairperson for the Tribe, that wasinterpreted to mean that the Tribe should be organized de novo; and in that process, it would beestablished who were the inherently rightful members in the Tribe and the authority for it, byusing objective criteria. Consequently, all distribution of money should have been stoppedimmediately succeeding the Olsen Determination; and early into these negotiations, the issue ofthe P.L. 93-638 contract money was raised - see Exhibit 5 (2005-03-16). That exhibit representsan early memo that addresses the 638 issue; however, the matter was raised before that date ofMarch 16, 2005. Repeatedly, the Appellants have tussled with the BIA over freezing the 638grant money; and the BIA, itself, has vacillated on the matter. The continued distribution of


4

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

1 The tribal Constitution of January 30, 2006 was adopted and signed 11 of 12 tribal membersand was submitted to the BIA for technical assistance on April 7, 2006.

money to the Tribe in the custody of Silvia Burley could create the erroneous impression that theBIA recognizes her as the authority for the Tribe; and since the Olsen Determination of February2005, probably over $500,000 from the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) has beenimproperly distributed to Ms. Burley on the basis of the continued 638 authorization to her.Again, the Appellants are informed that, with other tribes, the BIA has stopped the 638 moneywhen there is a substantive dispute in tribal authority - so, it can be done. Indeed, thecontinuation of the 638 contract will be a focal point in the forth-coming Interpleader suit whichthe California Gambling Control Commission has initiated in an attempt to resolve the properauthority to receive RSTF distributions. Finally, during her tenure as an authority for the Tribewith the custodianship of the tribal resources, Silvia Burley did next-to-nothing in terms oforganizing the Tribe, until recently; and that was due to the challenge of the Putative MemberClass. As alleged in various pleadings that have been submitted to the BIA since 1999 and,more recently, since 2003, she has used tribal money and resources to aggrandize herself and herfamily, exclusively - neglecting the needs and interests of the other members of the Tribe anddisregarding the broader Miwok community in the vicinity of the former Sheep Ranch Rancheriaand in Calaveras County.

THE ISSUE OF MALFEASANCE

Finally, the difficult issue of malfeasance must be raised. The following is Federal law. "U.S. Code, Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I - Crimes, Chapter 53 - Indians,Section 1163. Embezzlement and theft from Indian tribal organizations.

Whoever embezzles, steals, knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, willfullymisapplies, or willfully permits to be misapplied, any of the moneys, funds, credits, goods, assets,or other property belonging to any Indian tribal organization or intrusted to the custody or care ofany officer, employee, or agent of an Indian tribal organization; or

Whoever, knowing any such moneys, funds, credits, goods, assets, or other property to havebeen so embezzled, stolen, converted, misapplied or permitted to be misapplied, receives,conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or the use of another -

Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but if the value ofsuch property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title, or imprisonednot more than one year, or both.

As used in this section, the term "Indian tribal organization" means any tribe, band, orcommunity of Indians which is subject to the laws of the United States relating to Indian affairs orany corporation, association, or group which is organized under any of such laws."

Now, the fiduciary responsibility of Ms. Burley, in terms of her management of tribal assetsduring the period of her receipt of PL 638 funds from the BIA (some 5+ years), is, almostcertainly, going to be revealed as having been egregiously abusive by any standard. To identifyonly two items of such potential malfeasance, see Exhibit 6 (2003-03-29), which juxtaposesSilvia Burley's house against the tribal reservation property (i.e., Yakima house). This matter isfurther aggravated by the fact that Ms. Burley avers in her sworn deposition of May 11, 2004(See Exhibit 7 (2004-05-11)) that the property at 10601 Escondido Place, Stockton is'maintained in the name of the tribe' and it is 'owned by the tribe', when, in fact, the property isowned by "Silvia Burley, a married woman, as her sole and separate property" as is stated on theGrand Deed that is presently on file. In addition, see Exhibit 8 (2005-12-09), which shows that


5

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

one of the winners at the Mustangs Plus 2005 October Car Show was James (Tiger) Paulk, SilviaBurley's husband and "mechanical engineer" for the Tribe (as his occupation was stated in herDeposition of May 11, 2004). This shows Tiger Paulk's Cobra and 1967 Shelby which are twoof some 4 or 5 vintage, esoteric, Ford "muscle cars" which he owns and which are only a portionof many other automobiles which are owned by the family and almost certainly acquired fromtribal money and valued in the aggregate at close to $1 million.

Of course, any allegations of malfeasance with respect to tribal assets remains to be determinedwhen an accounting of tribal assets is possible. To date, Ms. Burley has steadfastly refused toprovide all such documents, which probably constitutes a violation of the civil rights of themembers of the Tribe. In addition, she has been reluctant to provide a timely accounting to theBIA for the 638 funds and has refused site visits by the BIA, both of which amplifies suspicion.The Tribe hopes to resolve these matter by itself without involving the BIA or the court and willwork toward that end. However, the BIA does not need to exacerbate potential malfeasance,which the Gregory Determination does.

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

For the reasons stated above, the issue of reinstating the Burdick Determination and nullifyingthe Gregory Directive is URGENT. Please direct any correspondence to both of therepresentatives below in addition to the tribal headquarters at:

California Valley Miwok Tribe, California (formerly the Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California)

11178 Sheep Ranch Rd., Mail P.O. Box 41Sheep Ranch, California 95250

Thank you,

916-690-2312510-486-1314Galt, California 95632Berkeley, California 94704213 Downing Dr. 2054 University Ave. #407Velma WhiteBear, Executive DirectorChadd Everone, Deputy

// Original Signed // Original Signed

Appeal approved by:Appeal drafted by:


6

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,MS-320-SIBWashington, DC 20240

Attention: Chief, Tribal Govt. ServicesDeputy Director Tribal ServicesBureau of Indian AffairsSacramento, California 95825

2800 Cottage WaySacramento, CA 95825-1890Pacific Regional Office2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712Bureau of Indian AffairsPacific Southwest RegionUnited States Depart of the InteriorOffice of the SolicitorDale Risling, Acting Regional Director

Washington, D.C. 20240Stockton, California 952121849 C Street, N.W.10601 Escondido Pl.4140 MIB, U.S. Department of InteriorSilvia BurleyThe Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs

Sacramento, California 95814Arlington, Virginia 22203650 Capitol Mall 8-500801 North Quincy St.Central California AgencyU.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Hearings and AppealsTroy Burdick, Superintendent andBoard of Indian Appeals

A copy of this Appeal has been sent to:

Certificate of Service

_________________________Bill Martin, Agent of Service

May 30, 2006


7

Board of Indian Appeals, Office of Hearings and AppealsU.S. Department of the Interior

Arlington, Virginia

Respondent

Clayton Gregory, Regional Director BIAMay 29, 2006

Dated January 6, 2006 Appellants

Clayton Gregory, Regional DirectorPutative Member ClassRegarding A Directive FromCalifornia), Yakima Dixie, and the

NOTICE OF APPEAL 1Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California (formerly the Sheep Ranch California Valley Miwok Tribe,


8

1 To facilitate referral of this document, it has been posted on the Internet in two formats. In pdf format, it is posted as: {http://www.federatedtribes.com/yakima/2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory.pdf }; and in html format with active links to the exhibits, it is posted as: { http:.//www.federatedtribes.com/yakima/2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory.html }.


9

CaliforniaValleyMiwokTribe,

California

May 29,2006

NOTICEOF

APPEALRegardingA Directive

FromClaytonGregory,RegionalDirector

DatedJanuary 6,

2006



209-728-2102

May 30, 2006

The Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs4140 MIB, U.S. Department of Interior1849 C Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20240

As prescribed by regulations, I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal which hasbeen forwarded to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals.

Sincerely,

______________________ Chadd Everone, Deputy


10



209-728-2102

May 30, 2006

Dale Risling, Acting Regional DirectorUnited States Depart of the InteriorBureau of Indian AffairsPacific Regional Office 2800 Cottage WaySacramento, California 95825

Mr. Risling:


Sincerely,



11



209-728-2102

May 30, 2006

Troy Burdick, Superintendent andCarol Rogers-Davis, Tribal Operations SpecialistBureau of Indian Affairs, Central California Agency650 Capitol Mall 8-500Sacramento, California 95814

Mr. Burdick and Ms. Davis:

I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal which has been forwarded to the InteriorBoard of Indian Appeals. Peter Glick, the lead attorney in the Interpleader Complaint, requestedthat I ask you to confirm with a letter or declaration that the subject of this Appeal (i.e, theGregory Directive) is in the appeal process. That action will be heard on June 15/16.

I have received notification from Tia Sam that she is proceeding with the FOIA requests, and weappreciate that effort. I will be forwarding various "pleadings" to you in the near future; and themembers of Tribe continue to hope that the organizational process can proceed expeditiously.

Sincerely,



12



209-728-2102

May 30, 2006

Silvia Burley10601 Escondido Pl.Stockton, California 95212


Sincerely,



13



209-728-2102

March 29, 2006

Office of the SolicitorPacific Southwest Region2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712Sacramento, CA 95825-1890

I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal regarding a Directive of the RegionalDirector, Clayton Gregory. That Directive reversed a Determination of the Area Superintendent,Troy Burdick. In Dale Risling's redirection to the Board of Indian Appeals you were copied; andtherefore I am copying you also with the Appeal.

Sincerely,

______________________

2006-03-29-Appeal-Gregory



209-728-2102

March 29, 2006

Bureau of Indian AffairsDeputy Director Tribal ServicesAttention: Chief, Tribal Govt. Services1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W., MS-320-SIB Washington, DC 20240

I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal regarding a Directive of the RegionalDirector, Clayton Gregory. That Directive reversed a Determination of the Area Superintendent,Troy Burdick. Dale Risling, the Acting Regional Director, redirected the matter to the Board ofIndian Appeals; and therein, he copied you; and therefore I am also copying you with theAppeal.

Sincerely,

______________________Chadd Everone, Deputy

2006-03-29-Appeal-Gregory



209-728-2102

March 29, 2006 Chadd Everone, Deputy

Jane Smith, Assistant AttorneyDivision of Indian AffairsOffice of the Solicitor, Mail Stop 6456 U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240Tel: 202-208-5808Fax: (202) 219-1791 or (202) 208-3490

Ms Smith:

I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal regarding a Directive of the RegionalDirector, Clayton Gregory. That Directive reversed a Determination of the Area Superintendent,Troy Burdick. In Mr. Burdick's Determination Scott Keep was copied, which I assume meansyourself; and therefore I am copying you also with the Appeal. I have follow-up with Mr.Gregory's office and am informed that the matter is under review.

I am not, herein, requesting action on your part.

We are now well into the "informal review" process of the Constitution, a process which I hopeto have completed within 30 days.

Sincerely,

______________________

2006-03-29-Appeal-Gregory-Smith



209-728-2102


Michael Olsen, Principal DeputyActing Assistant SecretaryDivision of Indian AffairsU.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20240Tel: 202-208-5808Fax: (202) 219-1791 or (202) 208-3490

Mr. Olsen:

I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal regarding a Directive of the RegionalDirector, Clayton Gregory. That Directive reversed a Determination of the Area Superintendent,Troy Burdick. Although in Mr. Burdick's Determination you were not specifically copied, Ithought that I might forward a copy to you as a reminder of the Appeal of Yakima Dixie whichyou address in February 2005 and which initiated the present course of events.

I am not, herein, requesting any action on your part.

Over the last year, we have been following your instructions to resolve the dispute in tribalauthority by organizing the Tribe; and we are now well into the "informal review" process of theConstitution, a process which I hope to have completed within 30 days. In April 2005, SilviaBurley attempted to block by court action your Directive and the BIA from being involve intribal organization. Thanks to the able representation of Jim Upton of the DOJ, Scott Keep andJane Smith, and our attorneys Liz Walker and Tim Vollmann, that action was recently dismissed;and Troy Burdick, Area Superintendent, has assure us that that the organizational process cannow be expedited. Mr. Burdick has recently assumed the position of Superintendent; and we aregrateful for his competence, openness, and efficiency.

Sincerely,

______________________




209-728-2102


Jerry Gidner, Director Tribal ServicesDivision of Indian AffairsU.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20240Tel: 202-208-5808Fax: (202) 219-1791 or (202) 208-3490

Mr. Gidner:

I am forwarding a copy of a recent Notice of Appeal regarding a Directive of the RegionalDirector, Clayton Gregory. That Directive reversed a Determination of the Area Superintendent,Troy Burdick. Although in Mr. Burdick's Determination you were not specifically copied, Ithought that I might forward a copy to you because our attorney, Liz Walker, has mentionedspeaking with you on the situation of this tribe; and I assume that, at some point, you will beinvolved in the organization of the Tribe.

I am not, herein, requesting any action on your part.

Sincerely,

______________________


Progress Notes

March 28, 29 Jackson Rancheria BIA meeting, Gregory did not attend.April 5, 2006 Called Gregory's office 916-978-6002 to request confirmation of receipt and ameeting. Dale Risling called to confirm the receipt

Exhibit 9(2006-03-29)

Exhibit 8(2005-12-09)

Exhibit 7(2004-05-11)

Exhibit 6(2003-03-29)

Exhibit 5(2005-03-16)

Exhibit 4(2006-02-18)

Exhibit 3(2006-01-19)

Exhibit 2(2006-01-06)

Exhibit 10(2006-05-18)

Exhibit 1(2005-12-29)

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA

2054 University Ave. #407Berkeley, California 94704

To:Antonia Lopez PO BOX 1432 Jackson, Calif. 95642

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Patricia Williams1307 N. San Joaquin Stockton, California95202-1124

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Iva Sandoval Carsoner31 1/2 S. SinclairStockton, California 95206

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Velma D. WhiteBear213 Downing Dr. Galt California 95632

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Antone Azevedo4001 Carrie Bee CourtNorth Highlands, CA95660-5301

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:

FROM: YAKIMA K. DIXIESheep Ranch Rancheria of MiWok Indians of California11178 Sheep Ranch Rd. Mail P.O. Box 41Sheep RanchCalifornia 95250

TO: Raymond FryTribal Operations Officer for Tribal ServicesBureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Dept. of the Interior Sacramento Area Office 650 Capitol Mall 8-500 Sacramento, California 95814-4708

To:Yakima Dixie V96007Corecctions Facility P.O. 686 Y116USoledad Ca 93960-0686

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Evelyn Wilson 41 Blagen Blvd Wilseyville, CA

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Michael MendiblesP.O. Box 493 West Point, California 95255

FRIENDS OF YAKIMA


To:Dequita Boire300 North Palm #25Blythe, CA 92225

FROM: California Valley Miwok Tribe, CaliforniaSheep Ranch Rancheria of MiWok Indians of California11178 Sheep Ranch Rd. Mail P.O. Box 41Sheep RanchCalifornia 95250

TO: Michael Olsen, Principal DeputyActing Assistant SecretaryDivision of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240


TO: Jane Smith, Assistant Attorney Division of Indian Affairs Office of the Solicitor, Mail Stop 6456 U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240


TO: Pat Ragsdale, Dir. Indian Affairs Division of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240

FROM: Sheep Ranch Rancheria of MiWok Indians of California11178 Sheep Ranch Rd. Mail P.O. Box 41Sheep RanchCalifornia 95250

TO: Dan Shillito, Regional SolicitorPacific Southwest Regional OfficeU.S. Department of the Interior2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712Sacramento, CA 95825-1890

FROM: Sheep Ranch Rancheria of MiWok Indians ofCalifornia c/o CHADD EVERONE


TO: Board of Indian AppealsOffice of Hearings and AppealsU.S. Department of the Interior801 North Quincy St.Arlington, Virginia 22203


TO: Scott Keep, Assistant Solicitor Branch of Tribal Government & Alaska Division of Indian Affairs Office of the Solicitor, Mail Stop 6456 U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240


TO: Debora G. Luther United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814


TO: George SteeleK & R Law Group LLP350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100Los Angeles, California 90071

Documents

Board of Indian Appeals, Office of Hearings and …californiavalleymiwok.com/2006-05-29-IBIA-Appeal-Gregory.pdf · U.S. Department of the Interior Arlington, Virginia ... Burley which