Juaneno Feud May Hurt Fight for Recognition : Native Americans: The group has split into factions under two rival leaders. Mission Indians are about to be evaluated by the federal government for tribal status.

A growing rift among the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians is threatening to split them into factions and imperil their long-sought goal of establishing their own sovereign government as a federally recognized tribe.

One of the Southland’s oldest Native American groups, the Juanenos have fought for federal recognition for decades. Representatives of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs are scheduled to visit early next year in what is believed to be one of the last steps in granting recognition to the tribe of 2,000 members scattered across the country.

But officials may find a people in disarray, as evidenced by a recent lawsuit.

At the center of the dispute is David Belardes, who was elected to lead the tribe in the 1980s but was recently ousted in a vote of the general council. Head of the rival faction is Sonia Johnston, who says Belardes has consistently exceeded his authority.

Belardes, 47, has refused to step down, and now he and Johnston are controlling separate factions. Belardes hired a security guard to ban members of the rival faction from a recent meeting at Mission San Juan Capistrano and is seeking an injunction in Superior Court to re-establish his authority.

A judge in Fullerton is expected to rule on the matter today.

“Sonia Johnston wants my job,” Belardes said last week. “She’s been around before, and when she hasn’t gotten her way, she’s come and gone. I guess this is her last hurrah.”

Johnston said Belardes was removed from his post as far back as March, 1993, but continues to represent the Juanenos--before the bureau, the state of California, various city councils and the media--”because he chooses to. And under the 1st Amendment, who can stop him?”

In a further attempt to lobby the government, Belardes met with President Clinton at a special White House reception Oct. 29. But his authority, Johnston said, extends only as far as that of any member of the tribe.

“He’s entitled to his say, but you don’t lock people out--that’s unconstitutional,” she said, referring to the meeting at the mission. “A good leader just doesn’t do that. Our wish is to keep our people together. But if bylaws aren’t being protected, what choice do we have? We have to fight.”

Belardes said he was appointed head of the three-member tribal council, the Juanenos’ governing body, in April, 1993. But Johnston said it was “only a voice vote” and thus not binding under the terms of Indian law.

“I was duly elected,” Belardes said. “Voice vote or no.”

Johnston said the general council later declared the tribal council nonexistent and at a meeting last month appointed her interim spokeswoman, pending new elections Dec. 17. It was earlier this month that Belardes barred her and others with the help of a security force.

“I will hold the role of tribal spokeswoman until our elections are completed in December and new tribal officers put in place,” Johnston said. “David has been nominated (to the soon-to-be-named tribal council) and could get elected--if, that is, he accepts the appointment.”

But Jim Velasquez, tribal chieftain of the coastal Gabrielinos, who also are seeking federal recognition, said the vote against Belardes appears to be binding under the terms of Indian law.

“When they submitted their application to the federal government for federal recognition, they submitted their tribal constitution and bylaws,” Velasquez said. “And if elections are not held according to that constitution, then that’s an attempt to defraud the U.S. Constitution.

“Theoretically, David should not be the tribal chairman because the general council voted him out. They’re a valid council--they’re a quorum of 25 people, with one-eighth or more Indian blood, and they lawfully defeated David.”

Recognition would grant the Juanenos their own sovereign government, giving them the right to establish their own schools and courts. It could greatly enhance their possibilities for expanded health care and job possibilities, while opening the door to owning Orange County’s first Indian-run casino.

Velasquez said ownership of a casino--and the vast potential profits it promises--are at the root of the Juanenos’ dispute and the reason Native American groups in Los Angeles and Orange counties “appear to be in a race” for federal recognition.

Belardes disagrees, saying “the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to casinos--I don’t know if it’s worth compromising our peace of mind to get involved in something like that. If it’s for the benefit of the tribe, well, certainly, we should consider it. We’re looking at federal recognition, and beyond that, at nothing else.”

For her part, Johnston said she believes the lack of unity constitutes “no splinter group--no split” and will, in fact, have no bearing on recognition.

“You occasionally have problems in your family, but does that destroy your family?” she asked. “The U.S. government has internal problems and conflicts, but does that destroy its ability to self-govern, or mean it shouldn’t be recognized? No way.”

But other members of the Southland’s Indian communities see the controversy in more damaging terms. Velasquez said that had the rift not developed the Juanenos were almost certain to be recognized, and soon.

“I can’t believe they would risk federal recognition over such a silly dispute,” he said. “They’ve fought for recognition for so long, and they really deserve it. Why ruin it now?”

A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington declined comment on the dispute, noting, however, that the Juanenos are due to be placed on a list of candidates under “active consideration” for recognition sometime in 1995.

“They’ve completed all of their paperwork and are ready for the next step,” said the bureau’s Alicia Sandoval.

The on-site visit to tribal headquarters takes place during “active consideration,” and in the Juanenos’ case, Sandoval said, the visit should be completed by summer.