1986 Crusader
11-16-2007, 12:19 PM
You want to know whats funny? the indans are full of s*** and ther are not truthfull. Mr johnson has payed them their money every month, and they refuse to chash the checks
DOES ANY ONE KNOW ANYBODY THAT CAN GET THIS INTO FEDERIAL COURT? IF IT GETS UPHELD IN TRIBAL COURT WE ARE AS GOOD AS DONE BECAUSE (CRIT) COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES RUN THINGS THERE OWN WAY
PLEASE ANY INFORMATION WOULD BE GREAT
The Colorado River Indian Tribes have moved to evict the manager and lease holder of the Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, a mobile home park on tribal land in California.
Robert Johnson has managed Water Wheel for several years but his lease ran out in July. The CRIT tribal council evicted Johnson on Oct. 1 and will take over management of the park. CRIT is also seeking damages because Johnson has refused to pay his rent for the last two years, according to CRIT Chairman Daniel Eddy Jr.
“Mr. Johnson has overstayed his lease and he owes the Tribes a substantial sum of money,” Eddy said. “The Tribes have been extremely patient with Mr. Johnson despite his longtime refusal to adhere to the community’s laws as a sovereign nation or to the BIA’s regulation as a federal authority. That patience has come to an end.”
Johnson has also reportedly threatened to evict tenants at the park who wish to pay their rent directly to the tribes instead of him. CRIT Council Member Herman “TJ” Laffoon stressed that the legal action would have no bearing on the residents currently living in the park.
“The Tribes have no intention of terminating the rights of sub-lease holders to be in the park,” Laffoon said. “We hope that they all choose to stay provided that they continue to comply with their rental agreements.”
The Water Wheel lease was originally negotiated 32 years go by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at a price of $100 per acre, or $2,600 a year. Johnson has collected well over a half-million dollars a year in rent over the past six years. Johnson also operates a small shop on the property from which he pays the tribes a percentage of gross sales on alcohol and other goods.
CRIT Attorney General Eric Shepard said that these severely under-market-value leases with the BIA were common many years ago – a sore subject with many tribes that has sparked litigation -- and that one prime property along the banks of the Colorado, for example, is still being leased for $200 a year.
Under the terms of the lease, CRIT and Johnson were to renegotiate the base rent in 2000, adjusting it to the current, fair market rental value of the property. Despite a series of appraisals and negotiations, CRIT and Johnson never reached an agreement on the annual base rent for the last six years of the lease.
The BIA appraised the fair market value at $101,500 per year, while Johnson, having obtained his own appraisal, maintained that the land was worth only $14,503. Johnson paid the Tribes $14,503 in 2001 and 2002, then lowered the rent for himself back to $2,600 a year. In 2006, he quit paying altogether.
According to CRIT records Water Wheel paid the Tribes only $48,710 in base rent over the past seven years and $33,019 in gross sales proceeds for a total of $81,730. During that same period, Shepard estimated that Johnson took in well over $5 million in gross receipts.
Boatcop
11-16-2007, 06:15 PM
Yes this same exact thing happend to red rooster, and they bulldozed it, what iv heard the court order they had was fake when the evicted bill booth :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
The court order was real. But it was issued by their own court.
The real issue is whether the California side is actually Reservation. The tribes say it is, but others say it isn't.
It has been heard in Federal Court, and the Judge agreed that the Tribe's position is on shaky ground, but the court had no jurisdiction due to Sovereign Immunity.
It has to do with the original survey that set the tribes boundary, which was approved by Congress in 1865. It set the boundary at the western shore of the Colorado River, which protected CRITs water rights, and it was understood that the boundary would shift as the River changed course.
It's a pretty complicated deal. Far too complicated to describe here. So look into it yourself here: http://members.cox.net/westbank/index.htm
1986 Crusader
11-16-2007, 10:06 PM
Here Moneypitt,
Law Offices
of
TIM MOORE
707 TORRANCE BOULEVARD, SUITE 220
TELEPHONE (310)540-1700
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277-3492
FACSIMILE (310 540-8652
email tmre9137@aol.com
Colorado River Indian Reservation Western Boundary Dispute
I. ORIGINAL FEDERAL STATUTES
The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) claims that it has the right to assert tribal jurisdiction over land within California (the West Bank lands), a claim that cannot be reconciled with the two federal statutes directly affecting the Colorado River Reservation (Reservation) and the West Bank lands at issue. The federal statutes are:
1. The California Indian Reservation Act of April 8, 1864, 13 Stat. 39 (“1864 Act”) (also known as the “Four Reservations Act”), which limited the number of Indian reservations within the State of California to four; and
2. The Colorado River Reservation Act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 559 (the “1865 Act”), which created the Reservation within the State of Arizona extending to the California bank of the Colorado River.
II. THE RESERVATION AS DEFINED BY CONGRESS
Congress defined the Reservation for certain purposes in the Act of April 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 188, Public Law 88-302, (“Public Law 88-302”). Consistent with the 1865 Act, Public Law 88-302, defined the Reservation as follows:
[Sec. 2] (b) “Colorado River Reservation” means the reservation for Indian use established by the Act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat 559), as modified and further defined by Executive orders of November 22, 1873, November 16, 1874, May 15, 1876, and November 22, 1915, all of which area shall be deemed to constitute such reservation.
Public Law 88-302 did not expand the Reservation into California; it was enacted solely for “the purpose of fixing the beneficial ownership of real property interests in the Colorado River Reservation now occupied by CRIT and others.” Public Law 88-302 merely confirmed beneficial ownership in the Reservation as it lawfully existed, and specifically provided at Section 5 that it was not legislating any legal adjustments to the Reservation boundaries:
Provided, however, that the authorization herein granted to the Secretary of the Interior ... shall not be construed to affect the resolution of any controversy of the location of the boundaries of the Colorado River Reservation: Provided, further, that any of the described lands in California shall be subject to the provisions of this Act when and if determined to be within the reservation.
Thus, the West Bank lands were not legislated to be within the Reservation by Public Law 88-302. In Public Law 88-302, Congress specifically rejected CRIT authority over the West Bank lands until “when and if determined to be within the reservation.” Public Law 88-302 at Section 5. After the CRIT Reservation was established through Executive Orders and CRIT began asserting reservation rights on the West Bank lands, the dispute over the location of the Reservation’s western boundary became a continuing matter.
III. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
In 1963, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the report of a Special Master who tried the boundary dispute and determined that the western line of the Reservation was a riparian boundary. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 630-36 (1983), discussing the 1963 Special MasterÂ’s determination (Arizona I). The Supreme CourtÂ’s involvement in the dispute was a result of water rights litigation. However, to determine the water rights entitlement for CRIT, it was necessary to know the proper boundary of their Reservation. CRITÂ’s entitlement to Colorado River water is based on the amount of river front property they own. This is referred to as riparian rights.
In Arizona I, Special Master Rifkind concluded that the boundary of the Reservation was riparian and did not include the West Bank lands. The Tribes subsequently sought to have the Secretary of the Interior persuade the Justice Department to institute quiet title actions in the West Bank lands based on claims that Master Rifkind had already rejected. The Solicitor of the Interior Department informed the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that the Department of Justice was “not willing to file an action to fix the boundary of the Colorado River Indian Reservation” at the location advocated by the Interior Department in Arizona I, and that it would take “more evidence or legal argument” than was available or was used in Arizona I to convince Justice to take action. The Justice Department’s position was made clear in a letter of March 30, 1966, from the Assistant Attorney General for the Lands and Natural Resources Division to representative Morris K. Udall of Arizona which explained that it was not clear that “any of the other lands west of the river might properly be considered a part of the reservation.” To take the action desired by the Tribes he indicated, the Department of Justice would need evidence of an intention to establish a fixed topographical feature (as opposed to the waters edge) as the western boundary.
Having been unsuccessful at the Justice Department, two and one half years later, on January 17, 1969, the eve of his departure from office, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall (Morris Udall's brother) issued an ex parte order stating that the West Bank land was in trust by virtue of accretion and no longer part of the public domain. (Secretarial Order). The Secretarial Order in effect concluded, without any trial or opportunity for a hearing, that the Reservation boundary is not a riparian boundary. The Secretarial Order was, and is, the only basis for CRITÂ’s claim that the land is reservation land. This is the same position that Special Master Rifkind had rejected, and which the Justice Department had rejected.
In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the SecretaryÂ’s authority to administratively determine the boundary, stating:
“[W]e in no way intended that ex-parte secretarial determinations of the boundary issues would constitute ‘final determinations’ ” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 636 (1983).
After the 1983 Supreme Court ruling, continued disputes led to Supreme Court Special Master Frank J. McGarrÂ’s issuance of Memorandum Opinion and Order No. 19 on January 18, 1996, rejecting the tribal land claims. Special Master McGarr stated at pp. 16-18:
“The Tribes and the United States rely heavily on an Order issued by the Secretary of the Interior on January 17, 1969, which is based on an opinion from the Solicitor of the Department of Interior issued that same day. The reasoning underlying the Secretary’s Order is not sound. It misinterprets the definition of bank and the nature of accretions. Moreover, the Secretary’s conclusion that the 1876 Order created a fixed boundary is directly contrary to the 1876 Order’s intent to create a riparian boundary.
Special Master McGarr also flatly rejected CRITÂ’s argument that the Public Law 88-302 implicitly authorized the Secretary to determine the Reservation boundary by the issuance of the Secretarial Order: The Special Master stated:
CRIT’s argument that Public Law 88-302 implicitly authorized the Secretary to determine the Reservation’s boundary is unfounded. To the contrary, Public Law 88-302 states, ‘the authorization herein granted ... shall not be construed to affect the resolution of any controversy over the location of the boundary of the Colorado River Reservation ...’ Id. at § 5. In light of this explicit statement, it is clear that Public Law 88-302 did not authorize the Secretary to resolve the boundary dispute.” Opinion and Order No. 19 at 17-18.
McGarrÂ’s January 18, 1996, Memorandum Opinion followed his earlier ruling on September 22, 1993, in Opinion and Order No. 14 that the Executive Order of 1876 established the western boundary of the Reservation as a riparian boundary. The same conclusion reached by Special Master Rifkind in Arizona I.
Based on Special Master McGarrÂ’s ruling on the legal effect of the Secretarial Order, CRIT knew it was going to lose the boundary issue, and therefore the West Bank lands would not be part of their Reservation. The Special Master had ruled conclusively that the Secretarial Order did not give CRIT control over the West Bank lands. To avoid the Special MasterÂ’s ruling becoming a binding legal precedent, CRIT settled the litigation for a small fraction of the additional water rights it had sought. CRIT ultimately conceded that there was a legitimate legal dispute over its claims to reservation status on the West Bank lands in documents filed with the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
On February 23, 1999, CRIT Chairman Daniel Eddy Jr., executed a Stipulation and Agreement to settle the water rights then in contest. In that document, the parties acknowledged the “uncertainty as to the legal status of the federal lands in the disputed area.” California and other parties to the agreement “expressly reserve[d] the right to challenge the validity, correctness, and the propriety of the 1969 Secretarial Order.”
With regard to the land ownership issue, CRIT clearly lost the two Supreme Court cases. Their arguments that the Secretarial Order gave them control over the West bank lands were soundly rejected. The Special Masters both concluded that there is no legal foundation for the Secretarial Order. The Special Masters statement that “the reasoning underlying the Secretary’s Order is not sound,” leaves no doubt that CRIT’s only authority for their claim to control this property is without merit. CRIT signed the Stipulation and Agreement in which the status of the West Bank lands was left unresolved. When this document was signed, CRIT formally acknowledged that the control of this land remains in dispute.
IV. CRITÂ’s FALSE STATEMENTS ASSERTING LEGAL AUTHORITY
As recently as December 6, 2001, CRIT Chairman, Daniel Eddy, Jr. in an interview with a reporter for the Parker Press admitted that the Secretarial Order is CRITÂ’s only authority for their alleged control of the West Bank lands. Regarding the ownership of the California land, Mr. Eddy stated:
“We’ve been in court for years---regarding water rights. This case has been to the Supreme Court twice and the interior secretary’s decision has stood. It’s our job to take care of our land. That is what we are doing---protecting land and water.”
The statements by Mr. Eddy are false and misleading. The Secretarial Order is of no legal value and the Supreme Court has so stated. There is no controlling legal precedent for CRITÂ’s alleged control of the West Bank lands. The Special Masters have clearly, undisputedly, and unequivocally rejected the Secretarial Order as any authority for CRITÂ’s ownership of the West Bank lands. Continuing to cite the Secretarial Order as their only legal authority clearly demonstrates the weakness of CRITÂ’s position.
It is without question: CRIT did not win the Supreme Court cases. There is also no doubt that the Secretarial Order is invalid and lacks the legal ability to vest control of this land in CRIT. Public law 88-302 also is clear: As a matter of law, CRIT cannot control this land.
OVERVIEW OF THE Paradise Point LAWSUIT
The Paradise Point residents have challenged a series of actions by CRIT purporting to exercise tribal sovereignty over the West Bank lands. The challenges are based on CRITÂ’s lack of legal authority for their ownership of this land.
In legal documents filed in this dispute, CRIT has argued that Sovereign Immunity (SI) prevents direct lawsuits against Indian Tribes. However, it is our argument that SI does not apply when the land is not an Indian Reservation and, thus, CRIT cannot invoke SI to prevent a determination of the proper ownership of the West Bank lands.
In this dispute, CRIT cited the Secretarial Order as “evidence” of trust status resulting from a purported extension of CRIT’s reservation into California. As previously discussed, the Secretarial Order is without legal authority to vest control in CRIT. Their assertion that the West Bank lands are in trust status is an attempt by CRIT to obscure their lack of legal authority. There are statutory and regulatory processes by which land can be taken into trust, compliance with which is not evidenced by the Secretarial Order or any other theory advanced by CRIT.
The bottom line is that the West Bank lands cannot be reservation lands unless specifically authorized by federal law. In turn, if the lands are not reservation lands, then there can be no tribal sovereignty or control over them. Thus, the actions of CRIT in asserting CRIT reservation rights over land that is not within the CRIT reservation are actions that are “beyond CRIT’s sovereignty” and not protected by the tribal sovereignty.
OTHER LEGAL PROOF AGAINST CRITÂ’S CLAIM
I. There Is No Authorization for a CRIT Reservation IN CALIFORNIA
The 1864 Act specifically provided that no more than four Indian reservations could be established within the State of California:
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, that there shall be set apart by the President, and at his discretion, not exceeding four tracts of land, within the limits of said state, to be retained by the United States for the purposes of Indian reservations *** [Emphasis supplied.]
That the 1864 Act established a federal statutory limitation to four reservations within California was unequivocally confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 489 (1973).
Since 1984, Congress has enacted two general statutory exceptions that would affect the four reservation limitation of the 1864 Act. The first general exception is found in the Mission Indians Relief Act of January 12, 1891, 26 Stat. 712, which authorized the establishment of reservations for Mission Indians residing in Southern California, which reservations were to be set aside from lands then in the public domain. The identity of Mission Indians was and is well known – they are the Indians historically residing adjacent to or near the Catholic missions throughout Southern California. Nothing has ever suggested that the West Bank lands were established as a reservation pursuant to this law.
The second general exception is at Section 7 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”), 48 Stat. 985, 25 U.S.C. § 467, which states that the Secretary may proclaim new Indian reservations of lands acquired by the United States pursuant to the IRA. This provision does not apply to a CRIT reservation on the West Bank lands because they were not so acquired.
ii. The West Bank Land Is Not In Trust Status
Neither general exception applies to the West Bank lands, so the next assessment must be whether there is some other manner in which the lands could have become reservation. CRIT asserts that the West Bank lands are held in trust for CRIT. They have stated:
“In 1969, the United States placed these lands into trust for the benefit of [CRIT]. Prior to 1969, the lands within the Western Boundary – which are part of the aboriginal land base of [CRIT] – were federal land managed by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (“BLM’).”
The Secretarial Order says the West Bank lands are “in trust for [CRIT]” because they are accretions of land. Beyond the “accretion” statement, the Secretarial Order states no other basis for trust status of the West Bank lands. With this, it is appropriate to revisit the 1983 Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. California. That ruling concluded that the Secretarial Order is not a binding determination. The Secretarial Order is the only document purporting to place the disputed land within the Reservation. The Supreme Court has adjudicated it to be moot, CRIT has no legal basis to claim the disputed territory lies within the reservation. In addition, since the Secretarial Order uses the “accretion of the Reservation” as the basis for stating, the lands are in trust, that issue too fails to carry any legal weight. Legally the Secretarial Order is no authority at all.
We are aware of only one federal law of authorizing the Secretary to take land into trust, and it is found at Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 265 – an authority which authorizes the Secretary to take into trust only land acquired by the United States pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act. The narrow trust acquisition provisions of Section 5 do not extend to lands already in federal ownership and BLM management and do not apply to the West Bank lands which the defendants concede were public domain lands at the time of the Secretary’s action.
Even if Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act did apply to the West Bank land, it is noted that there are regulations that dictate the process by which the land is taken into trust. CRIT has not offered any proof that any applicable regulations were followed. The only statement found is that the land is trust land through accretion, a notion for which there is no legal citation by either the Secretary in the 1969 Secretarial Order or by CRIT in their pleadings in the lawsuit.
III. CRIT Has No Aboriginal Rights at the West Bank Lands
Finally, CRIT has argued that they have some special rights in the West Bank lands by virtue of a claimed aboriginal occupancy of the lands.
In any event, claims of aboriginal occupancy of California lands are absolutely irrelevant as a matter of law. Indians of California v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 583, 1942 WL 4378 (1942). Citing Hayt., Admin. v. United States and Utah Indians, 38 Ct.Cl. 455, the Court reaffirmed that Indians living in California “possessed no title to any particular real property existing under the Mexican law in California.”
Moreover, the Claims Court noted that California Indians failed to establish their title to any land within the state pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631. The 1851 Act was entitled “An Act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California” and it required all claimants to land title to establish their title to the satisfaction of a Commission established pursuant thereto. The Court observed that the Indians of California did not qualify their land claims before the Commission, meaning that “whatever lands they may have claimed became a part of the public domain of the United States.” Indians of California, 98 Ct.Cl. At 587 (citing Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901); United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., et al, 265 U.S. 472 (1924)). [Emphasis supplied.]
CONCLUSION
The federal government owns the land now and it will still own the land when CRIT is gone. CRIT is unable to assert reservation jurisdiction over the West Bank lands until, and unless, the United States takes lawful steps to formally establish an extension of the Colorado River Reservation on the California side of the Colorado River. This has never happened and is prohibited by the 1864 Act.
There are certain individuals who may have valid claims to this land if it is determined that CRIT does not own it. However, the majority of this property would be owned by the United States and would be controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.
That the reservation status is an open and unresolved issue is unquestioned. In the 1999 Stipulation and Agreement in Arizona v. California, the parties expressly acknowledged the “uncertainly as to the legal status of the federal lands in the disputed area” and California “expressly reserve[d] the right to challenge the validity, correctness, and the propriety of the 1969 Secretarial Order.” The Stipulation further provided that the “United States and [CRIT], but not the other parties to this Stipulation and Agreement, agree that the lands described in the 1969 Secretarial Order, are included within the Reservation... and are held in trust United States for the benefit of [CRIT].” Consequently, that the reservation and trust land status remains unresolved to this day cannot be questioned and CRIT has so stipulated in the Stipulation and Agreement.
Even a casual reading of the Stipulation makes clear that the best argument CRIT can make is that there is an unresolved issue of reservation status. Moreover, viewed in this light, the lawsuit against CRIT seeks only to prohibit them from exercising sovereignty in an area where sovereignty is at best uncertain.
CRIT does not have reservation status to the West Bank lands. In any activities conducted by CRIT, on this land, they are acting beyond the scope of their tribal sovereignty. The only reason they have been successful in the past, is that their authority was not seriously challenged.
Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.
e-dr 5-22-02 legal outline
Don't think the tribe wants it to come to a head as they might lose.
Rio
TIM MOORE is in on this situation,
also this document you have posted is from 2002,
ill FW you letters from tim moore, if you would like
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.