~ No Stone Unturned Genealogy ~
Lorraine Escobar, CG/NALCM

Bio & History Page / Ethics Not For Sale / Continued - 1

Ethics Not For Sale

A Public Rebuttal to the Findings of the Yavapai Prescott Tribal Court

Against Lorraine Escobar, CG/NALCM
~ March 13, 2010 ~

(Continued - 2)

bonded, are duty bound to retain proper custody of the records, maintain them, and protect them.” [4] Obviously, Mrs. Warren was glaringly ignorant of this basic rule of admissibility as it applies to genealogy.

In conclusion, neither Jim Warren nor Paula Steward-Warren was qualified to evaluate my work or that of any other genealogist.

Tribal Court Trial Conducted in Absentia

When I asked to get a peer-review conducted on my work by another professional, certified genealogist, I was denied. Eventually, the judge, not having any familiarity with genealogical proof standards, felt compelled to accept the Warners’ so-called “expert” testimony because I was not there to defend my work. And what is very sad is he never once looked at my report.

Just before the final tribal court proceedings, I finally found a federal-law attorney to assist me. She discovered that all the subpoenas that the Board’s attorneys had issued were illegal. She advised me that once I delivered the report, I was no

[4]Stevenson, Revised Edition, Genealogical Evidence, A Guide to the Standard of Proof Relating to Pedigrees, Ancestry, Heirship and Family History, p. 191.

~ No Stone Unturned Genealogy ~
Lorraine Escobar, CG/NALCM

longer under any previously agreed-upon tribal jurisdiction. Upon her advice, I withdrew from any further involvement in this case. I notified the court of this but it nevertheless conducted trial in absentia (without me).

YPIT Board’s Post-Trial Attempts to Discredit Me

After that trial, the YPIT Board lodged a complaint with the Board of Certification for Genealogists [BCG], requesting my de-certification. Their complaint did not mention the illegality of the Board’s subpoena’s nor the in-absentia nature of the trial – nor did it include a copy of my report – but simply restated their attorney’s remarks made during trial. However, as every good genealogist should know, “What an attorney says in court is not evidence.”

The arrival of this complaint occurred at the time I applied for certification renewal with the BCG. I submitted the letter from the YPIT Board offering to drop all charges if I “reversed” my findings. I submitted my renewal application that included samples of work I performed in the previous four years (not including the YPIT work, due to its confidentiality). In July 2003, the BCG renewed my certification giving me high marks for evidentiary evaluation.

Obviously, the Board’s effort to kill the message – and to silence its messenger – failed. The BIA saw and approved my findings for tribes I have worked with in demonstrating compliance with 25 CFR 83.7(e) (historical descent, genealogy). The DOI reviewed my work regarding Robert Rice’s lineage and concurred with my findings based on the evidence before them. Finally, the BCG recognized my application of professional standards and applauded my abilities to make a determination based on all of the evidence.

page 5

««« Back to page 3

On to page 7 »»»