Foreman Family Still Denied Justice: Proven Lineage Ignored in Redding Rancheria Disenrollment
- Rex Ballard
- 5 hours ago
- 3 min read
REDDING, CA – More than two decades after the Redding Rancheria Tribal Council disenrolled approximately 76 extended members of the Foreman family, the case remains a stark example of how tribal sovereignty can leave families without meaningful recourse — even when they present clear evidence of their heritage.
Lineal Descent — No Blood Quantum Required
The Redding Rancheria’s own Constitution and enrollment rules base membership solely on lineal descent from one of the 17 original distributees recognized during the tribe’s restoration. There is no blood quantum (percentage of ancestry) requirement.
The Foreman family has consistently maintained they are direct lineal descendants of Virginia Timmons, one of those 17 original distributees. They submitted substantial documentation, including historical records, census data, family Bible entries, witness testimony, and DNA testing results obtained through the exhumation of ancestral remains.
Evidence Presented, Decision Stood
Despite this evidence, the tribal enrollment process in the early 2000s rejected the family’s claims. In 2003–2004, the Tribal Council voted to disenroll the extended family. Later, in a separate 2008 federal review for a land trust decision, the U.S. Department of the Interior examined similar evidence and concluded the family members are lineal descendants of Virginia Timmons.
An underlying dispute clearly existed between the family and the Tribal Council. Former tribal chairman Bob Foreman and his daughter Carla Maslin publicly stated that the real issue was greed. As Maslin explained in a 2006 Marketplace report, the tribe essentially told members: “Just think how much money you’ll get when the 76 members of the Foremans are out.” The tribe had been under 300 members at the time, and disenrollment translated into a significant increase in per capita casino payments — reportedly around $3,000 more per month for remaining members. The family also alleged they were targeted for questioning casino finances and other tribal matters.
The Numbers Today: The Redding Rancheria currently has an estimated 390–410 enrolled members (approximately 393 as of 2023). The 2003–2004 action removed roughly 76 members, predominantly from the extended Foreman family — a significant portion of the tribe at that time.
Courts Unable to Intervene
When the Foreman family sought relief in California state courts — citing Public Law 280 for jurisdiction over certain matters on Indian lands — the tribe asserted sovereign immunity. The courts largely deferred to the tribe’s internal authority over membership decisions.
This outcome is common in tribal disenrollment cases. Even when credible evidence exists, tribal sovereignty typically prevents external judicial review. Federal and state courts are reluctant to intervene in internal tribal matters, leaving affected families with few legal options.
Visible protest signs near the casino (“Foreman Belong,” “Disenrolled”) and ongoing “Foreman Strong” advocacy efforts continue to highlight the unresolved grievance in the local community.
A Question of Fairness and Transparency
The Redding Rancheria has become a major economic and healthcare provider in Shasta County. Its sovereign right to determine membership is protected by law. However, when a family presents documented evidence of lineal descent — as required by the tribe’s own rules — and is still denied membership with no effective independent review, it raises serious concerns about due process and justice.
Residents deserve greater transparency in decisions that impact long-standing families and the broader community. The Foreman case underscores broader questions about consistency and fairness in tribal enrollment processes.
Shasta Unfiltered will continue to follow this story and similar issues in local governance, accountability, and the equal application of rules.
