Docket No. MD 26-32

INITIAL DECISION

Silvia Burley and Antoinette Del Rio both seek mail addressed to the California Valley Miwok Tribe (CVMT or Tribe) at P.O. Box 695, San Andreas, California 95249.¹ Ms. Del Rio rented the box and claims entitlement as Interim Chairperson of the Interim Tribal Council. Ms. Burley claims entitlement as Chairperson of the CVMT’s General Council, an entity she was involved in establishing in 1998.

As Interim Chairperson of the Interim Tribal Counsel, Ms. Del Rio is the proper person to direct who receives the mail. Ms. Burley failed to meet her burden to prove otherwise. I recommend that the Judicial Officer issue an order directing the San Andreas Postmaster to deliver all mail being held for P.O. Box 695 as directed by Ms. Del Rio and to resume delivery of mail addressed to that box.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. CVMT is a federally recognized Indian tribe (Del Rio Decl. ¶ 1).

2. For years, however, CVMT did not have a formally organized government under section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5123 (formerly 25 U.S.C. § 476)).² Formal organization under the IRA did not take place until October 1, 2024. On that date, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved a Constitution adopted by a majority of the 174 registered voters of CVMT in an election that it called and held under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. (Del Rio Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, Exs. B-C; Ratcliffe Decl. ¶¶ 14-16).

3. The Constitution established a Tribal Council to be the governing body of CVMT.
Its members are to be elected within two years after BIA’s approval of the Constitution. This council has, among other things, the powers to contract and enter into agreements on behalf of the Tribe, appropriate and regulate the use of Tribal funds, regulate all business activities within the Tribe’s jurisdiction, and oversee all Tribal economic affairs and enterprises. Enactments of the council under the Constitution are designated as resolutions or ordinances. (Del Rio Decl. Ex. C at 6-8).

4. Under the Constitution, the Tribal Council has a Chairperson and other officers, each with duties. Among the duties of the Chairperson are “executing on behalf of the Tribe all contracts, leases or other documents” and “any other duties required by Tribal law consistent with this Constitution and Tribal Ordinances.” (Del Rio Decl. Ex. C at 4).

5. To account for the time needed to conduct the initial Tribal Council election, the
Constitution also established an Interim Tribal Council. Its members were listed in the Constitution, with Ms. Del Rio being one of them. (Del Rio Decl. Ex. C at 8).

6. The Constitution did not designate any members of the Interim Tribal Council to specific offices. But within a month of the Constitution’s approval, the Interim Tribal Council determined that it was necessary and in the best interests of the Tribe to designate officers and issued a resolution doing so. Ms. Del Rio was designated as the Interim Chairperson. (Del Rio Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. D).

7. Since at least October 2024, Ms. Del Rio has rented P.O. Box 695, San Andreas, California 95249, with the fees paid for by CVMT. She and another Interim Tribal Council member, Antonia Lopez, have the keys to the box. (Del Rio Decl. ¶¶ 3-4).

8. Ms. Burley is not an enrolled member of the CVMT as formally organized (Del Rio Decl. ¶ 17; see also Silvia Burley Comments to Recorder pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 965.6 (filed Feb. 19, 2026) (Burley Comments) at 5).

9. She does, however, have a long history with the CVMT and claims to be one of only a few of its duly enrolled members.³ In 1998, she, her two daughters, and her granddaughter were enrolled as members by Yakima Dixie, one of only two individuals whom BIA determined then to have rights to organize CVMT. (Ratcliffe Decl. Ex. 5 at 33-34,⁴ Ex. 7 ¶ 85; Burley Comments Ex. 3 at 3-4).

10. Later that year, Ms. Burley signed a resolution establishing a General Council to serve as CVMT’s governing body. The resolution stated that the Tribe had at least five members and listed her as one of those five. It stated that the General Council would appoint a Chairperson. The only other member who signed was Mr. Dixie, and only two votes were tallied.⁵ (Ratcliffe Decl. ¶¶ 3-16; Burley Comments Ex. 1, Ex. 3 at 4).

11. Shortly after the resolution, Ms. Burley and Mr. Dixie began to disagree about CVMT matters. In 1999, Ms. Burley became Chairperson. (Ratcliffe Decl. Ex. 5 at 33-34; Burley Comments Ex. 3 at 4).

12. Ms. Burley tried to formally organize CVMT under the IRA. In March 2004, the BIA rejected a constitution that she sent because she had not involved the “whole tribal community.”⁶ (Burley Comments Ex. 3 at 4).

13. Ms. Burley filed a lawsuit challenging the rejection but lost, both at the district court and on appeal. CVMT v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D.D.C. 2006) (CVMT I),
aff’d, 515 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (CVMT II).

14. During this time, BIA recognized Ms. Burley as the spokesperson for CVMT. For instance, in March 2022, it wrote to her as Chairperson about a government-to-government contract between the United States and CVMT under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-638 (also known as a 638 contract). (Ratcliffe Decl. Ex. 7 ¶ 54; Burley Comments Ex. 2; Letter from Peter Lepsch, Esq., to Candace Miller, San Andreas, CA, Postmaster (Dec. 27, 2025) (filed under “Supporting Documents” Jan. 21, 2026) (Lepsch Letter) at 2).

15. Between 2011 and 2022, three Assistant Secretaries-Indian Affairs (AS-IA) issued differing decisions about who were, or could be, members of CVMT. The first AS-IA, Larry Echo Hawk, agreed with Ms. Burley, stating in 2011 that there were only five members of CVMT (Mr. Dixie, Ms. Burley, and Ms. Burley’s two daughters and granddaughter) and recognizing the General Council established by the 1998 resolution. The second AS-IA, Kevin Washburn, decided that the tribe was larger than five members and refused to recognize the General Council as CVMT’s leadership because the 1998 resolution did not involve the “whole tribal community.” He determined that there were three categories of people eligible for membership. His decision initially increased the number of eligible members significantly. But the subsequent discovery of a genealogical error rendered at least one category moot and “severely” reduced that number (arguably to around 10).⁷ In 2022, the third AS-IA, Bryan Newland, revised AS-IA Washburn’s decision to include a fourth category. That category brought the number of eligible members back up significantly. (Ratcliffe Decl. Exs. 1, 4, 5 at 37, 53; Burley Comments Ex. 3).

16. AS-IA Newland’s decision was used to determine membership eligibility for the 2024 Secretarial election. BIA issued a public notice asking individuals who believed they were eligible to submit a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) form along with supporting documents. (Ratcliffe Decl. Ex. 2).

17. Lawsuits were filed after each of the AS-IA decisions, not only by Ms. Burley, ⁸ but also by Mr. Dixie and a group I will refer to as the Mendibles. See, e.g., CVMT v. Jewell, 5 F. Supp. 3d 86 (D.D.C. 2013) (CVMT III); CVMT v. Zinke, No. 2:16-cv-01345, 2017 WL 2379945 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (CVMT IV); CVMT v. Haaland, No. 22-cv-1740-JMC, 2024 WL 3756397 (D.D.C. 2024) (not reported).

18. Ms. Burley has yet to prevail. So far, two district courts, D.C. and Eastern District of California, have ruled against her. CVMT III, 5 F. Supp. 3d 86; CVMT IV, 2017 WL 2379945.

19. There are currently three active cases, two brought by Ms. Burley and one by the Mendibles. Burley Comments 5-6; see also CVMT v. Burgum, No. 24-5231 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 9, 2024) (Mendibles appeal); CVMT v. Haaland, No. 24-cv-00947-JMC (D.D.C. April 2, 2024) (Burley CDIB case); Burley v. Haaland, No. 24-cv-2455-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Burley Secretarial election case).

20. The Mendibles filed their lawsuit in the D.C. District Court. They challenged the 2024 Secretarial election because it is based on AS-IA Newland’s decision. This group believes AS-IA Washburn’s decision should determine membership eligibility regardless of the genealogical error on which it is based. The district court ruled against this group, but they have appealed to the D.C. Circuit. CVMT v. Haaland, No. 22-cv-1740-JMC, 2024 WL 3756397 (D.D.C. 2024) (not reported), appeal docketed, CVMT v. Burgum, No. 24-5231 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 9, 2024).

21. Ms. Burley also filed two cases at the D.C. District Court. In these cases, she challenges, respectively, (1) BIA’s use of the CDIB form to determine membership generally (which encompasses BIA’s use for the 2024 election), and (2) BIA’s Secretarial election procedures and final agency actions for the 2024 election. Ratcliffe Decl. Exs. 3, 7; see also CVMT v. Haaland, No. 24-cv-00947-JMC (D.D.C. April 2, 2024) (Burley CDIB suit); Burley v. Haaland, No. 24-cv-2455-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Burley Secretarial election suit).

22. Ms. Burley’s two cases are stayed pending the resolution of the Mendibles’ appeal (Statement of Antoinette Del Rio Disputing Declaration of Gavin M. Ratcliffe (Feb. 19, 2026) (Del Rio Statement)) ¶ 3; see also Minute Orders, Nos. 24-cv-00947-JMC and 24-cv- 2455-JMC (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2024).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Burley first initiated her dispute with the San Andreas Postmaster, who immediately placed mail delivery to the P.O. Box on hold. After affording all interested parties an opportunity to respond, the Postmaster and Postal Service Law Department concluded that the Interim Tribal Council was entitled to delivery of the disputed mail.

Based on the request of one of Ms. Burley’s representatives, the Postal Service Law Department forwarded the dispute to the Judicial Officer, who then directed the San Andreas Postmaster to hold CVMT’s mail pending resolution of this dispute. The Postal Service Law Department also forwarded supporting documentation submitted by the disputants to the San Andreas Postmaster.

The dispute was docketed as Docket No. MD 26-32. As part of these proceedings, the parties submitted signed declarations and additional comments.

DECISION

When there is a conflicting order by two or more parties for delivery of the same mail, the dispute may be referred to the Judicial Officer Department for resolution. Postal Operations Manual (POM) § 616. Postal regulations, however, do not specifically address the delivery of mail to Indian tribes. Where such disputes have arisen, we have applied the postal regulations applicable to governmental and nongovernmental organizations. See, e.g., Wilson Yargee and Samuel Marshall, MD 22-341, 2022 WL 17370345 (I.D. Nov. 18, 2022); Darren Rose and Wendy Del Rosa, MD 14-391, 2015 WL 13647656 (I.D. Mar. 11, 2015); Ronald D. Twohatchet and Bruce Dean Poolaw, MD 11-264, 2011 WL 13238612 (I.D. Dec. 5, 2011). As applied to tribes, those regulations require that the mail be delivered according to the order of the tribe’s president or equivalent official. POM § 614.1; Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 508.1.5.

In this case, the CVMT does not have a president. The equivalent official, under the postal regulations, is currently Interim Chairperson of the Interim Tribal Council. That official is Ms. Del Rio. Her authority stems from the 2024 Secretarial election ratifying a Constitution for the CVMT. That election was conducted under the procedures of the IRA. See 25 U.S.C. § 5123. This Constitution established the Interim Tribal Council, whose listed members would serve until elections for the Tribal Council could take place. The Constitution did not list officers for the Interim Tribal Council, but it allowed for resolutions. By resolution, the Interim Tribal Council appointed Ms. Del Rio as Interim Chairperson.

As the disputant seeking to change the status quo, Ms. Burley has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, her claim that she is entitled to the mail. See Yargee, 2022 WL 17370345, at *2; David Greene and Jack C. Waldon, MD-120, 1991 WL 12010581, at *2 (I.D. Aug. 7, 1991); Margaret M. Kiely, d/b/a Kiely Legal Search Consultants, Inc. and Margaret C. Kruza, d/b/a Kruza Personnel, MD-42, 1989 WL 1843897, at *2 (I.D. Feb. 8, 1989). To meet her burden, she argues that the 2024 Secretarial election, and consequently the Constitution establishing the Interim Tribal Council, are invalid. She also argues that the General Council, established by the 1998 resolution, is the only lawful governing body of CVMT, and she is the Chairperson of the General Council.⁹ (Ratcliffe Decl. ¶¶ 14-16; Lepsch Letter 4).

The validity of the 2024 Secretarial election has been, and is, the subject of litigation in the federal courts. Thus far, it has survived challenge. One line of attack, taken by both Ms. Burley and the Mendibles, has been to challenge AS-IA Newland’s decision, which was used to determine who was eligible to participate in the election. The D.C. District Court found, in the Mendibles’ case, that AS-IA Newland acted reasonably, and the court upheld his decision under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review. CVMT v. Haaland, No. 22-cv-1740-JMC, 2024 WL 3756397 (D.D.C. 2024) (not reported), appeal docketed, CVMT v. Burgum, No. 24-5231 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 9, 2024).

In her two stayed cases, Ms. Burley has attacked the election in other ways: (1) by challenging BIA’s use of CDIB applications generally, and (2) by challenging BIA’s Secretarial election procedures and final agency actions for the 2024 election. Ratcliffe Decl. Exs. 3, 7; Burley Comments at 5-6. BIA did, however, approve the Constitution of that election. While BIA’s positions are not binding on this forum, based on its thorough knowledge of the IRA and CVMT’s history, I find its approval is entitled to some weight. Twohatchet, 2011 WL 13238612, at *4; Sylvia T. Arzate and John Marcus, MD 04-181, 2005 WL 8152943, at *2 (I.D. Feb. 28, 2005); see also Dan Shoshone and Shirley Summers, MD 05-4, 2005 WL 8152972, at * 3 (I.D. Mar. 25, 2005).

Considering the district court’s holding in the Mendibles’ case and the BIA’s approval of the Constitution ratified under the 2024 Secretarial election, I find that it is more likely than not that Ms. Del Rio is the CVMT’s equivalent official to a president. A reasonable decision is that the mail should be delivered as requested by Ms. Del Rio.

My inquiry could have ended here based on the totality of evidence establishing Ms. Del Rio as CVMT’s equivalent official to a president. Nonetheless, I also considered Ms. Burley’s claim that she is entitled to the mail and find that she has failed to meet her burden.

Ms. Burley relies on the 1998 resolution as the basis for her claim that she is Chairperson of the General Council (Ratcliffe Decl. ¶ 3; Lepsch Letter at 4). That resolution was created when CVMT membership was limited to five individuals (only two of whom voted). Ms. Burley has argued unsuccessfully in federal courts that the membership then was properly limited to those five individuals and that the 1998 resolution is CVMT’s governing document. AS-IA Echo Hawk agreed with her in his 2011 decision. But the D.C. District Court rejected his decision as arbitrary and capricious, finding that the record was clear that the tribe was larger than five members and that he acted unreasonably in recognizing the General Council established by the 1998 resolution. CVMT III, 5 F. Supp. 3d at 98-100.

Ms. Burley was also unsuccessful before the Eastern District of California, where she had challenged AS-IA Washburn’s decision, again arguing that CVMT membership was limited to five individuals and the General Council should be recognized. As the court held, issue preclusion prevented Ms. Burley from relitigating CVMT III’s finding on the number of members. CVMT IV, 2017 WL 2379945, at *6. The court also upheld AS-IS Washburn’s decision not to recognize the General Council. Id. at *6-8.

More recently, when deciding the Mendibles’ case, the D.C. District Court rejected not only the Mendibles’ position, but also Ms. Burley’s. It noted, “Across many years and several administrations, the BIA, federal courts in the Ninth and D.C. Circuits, and many people connected to the Tribe deemed it wholly unreasonable to conclude that tribal membership was limited to just ‘five individuals’ given a record ‘replete with evidence’ that the figure was ‘significantly larger.’” Haaland, 2024 WL 3756397, at *4.

Considering these decisions and the limited number of people involved with the 1998 resolution, I find that, regardless of the outcome of the challenges to the 2024 Secretarial election, it is more likely than not that neither the General Council nor Ms. Burley are the leaders of CVMT. It, therefore, is reasonable to decide that Ms. Burley is not CVMT’s equivalent official to president and thus not entitled to direct the delivery of the disputed mail.

Next, I will address Twohatchet, 2011 WL 13238612, which Ms. Burley cited in two filings in support of her position. Burley Comments at 2; Lepsch Letter at 3-4. In that case, BIA recognized Mr. Twohatchet as the Chairman of his tribe’s Business Committee for a temporary, 90-day period after a recall election.

First, Ms. Burley misconstrues the term “interim.” In Twohatchet, “interim” was used to refer to that temporary, 90-day recognition. Here, BIA’s recognition is interim only in the sense that the Interim Tribal Council exists until the initial general election of the Tribal Council. The Interim Tribal Council was, nonetheless, established by CVMT’s Constitution. BIA will not have to “withdraw[] their interim recognition,” as Ms. Burley claims. Burley Comments at 2. Even if it did, the Tribal Council would step into its place.

Second, I am following Twohatchet. As Ms. Burley points out, in Twohatchet, the judge declined to defer to BIA’s interim recognition as “it would result in the most fleeting of solutions.” Burley Comments at 2 (quoting Twohatchet). But the judge gave it some weight. 2011 WL 13238612, at *4. Likewise, here, I am not deferring to BIA’s actions; rather, I am giving them some weight based on their thorough knowledge of the IRA and CVMT’s history.

Finally, I address Ms. Burley’s alternative request that the Postal Service continue to hold mail delivered to the P.O. Box or return all mail to sender until the resolution of all judicial proceedings. This request ignores the Postal Service’s mission to deliver the mail, Rose, 2015 WL 13647656, at *3, and the short timeframes for decisions under postal regulations, 39 C.F.R. §§ 965.11-.12; POM § 616.21. In essence, she is requesting that I decline to make a decision. Absent an agreement by the parties to suspend action, I have no authority to decline to decide a mail dispute. See, e.g., Rose, 2015 WL 13647656, at *3 (citing Dennis J. Bowen and Karen Bucktooth, MD 95-59 (I.D. May 24, 1995)). Her alternative request is, therefore, denied.

In sum, as Interim Chairperson of the Interim Tribal Counsel, Ms. Del Rio is the proper person to direct who receives the disputed mail. Ms. Burley failed to meet her burden to prove otherwise. Accordingly, the held mail addressed to the P.O. Box at issue should be delivered as directed by Ms. Del Rio and delivery of mail addressed to that box should resume.

The purpose of a mail dispute proceeding is to determine the right to delivery of the mail. See, e.g., Edwin G. Blake and Sonja Haag-Ducharme, MD-197, 1994 WL 17112135, at *2 (F.D. Jan. 18, 1994). It does not determine ownership of the contents of the mail and does not attempt to resolve underlying disputes between the parties. Id. If a subsequent court order directs delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to that order. POM § 616.3; DMM § 508.1.7.3.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This Initial Decision therefore recommends that the Judicial Officer issue an order directing the San Andreas Postmaster to deliver the held mail addressed to P.O. Box 695, San Andreas, California 95249 as directed by Ms. Del Rio and to resume delivery of mail addressed to that box.