Court Uphold CRIT Decision against Water Wheel.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 29

Thread:
Court Uphold CRIT Decision against Water Wheel.

  1. #1
    Senior Member stix818's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mohave Valley/Quartzsite
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Court Uphold CRIT Decision against Water Wheel.

    Just saw this in the local paper.. Not sure if you guys have seen this yet.

    U.S. District Court upholds CRIT decision against Water Wheel.

    Tuesday, September 29, 2009

    PARKER, Ariz. - The U.S. District Court late last week awarded a significant legal victory to the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) in its case against Robert Johnson and his Water Wheel Resort

    Judges Gary LaRance, Jolene Marshall and David Campbell affirmed a ruling by the CRIT Tribal Court to evict Water Wheel and order the company to pay damages to CRIT for non-payment of rent.

    The decision validates the Tribal Court's decision, allows the tribes to move forward with the eviction of Water Wheel, Inc., and allows the tribes to collect a multi-million dollar damage award. It also, again, upheld that CRIT has the full legal right to enforce leases and legal agreements on its lands in California.


    "This is an important victory for CRIT and a ruling that upholds our tribal sovereignty," said Tribal Chairman Eldred Enas. "It shows that no one who enters into an agreement with CRIT is above the law and protects the integrity of the tribal court system. CRIT is committed to moving forward with this matter and similar lease enforcement issues on its western boundary."

    The Court also ruled that the facts of the case did not support CRIT exercising personal jurisdiction over Johnson.

    This case followed from a suit in Tribal Court by CRIT against Water Wheel, Inc., and Johnson for eviction and damages for past due and holdover rent. Water Wheel had a 32-year lease for 26 acres of riverfront land along the California side of the Colorado River that expired in July 2007.

    Water Wheel and Johnson were supposed to surrender the property peaceably and without resorting to legal process upon expiration. They did not and the tribes filed suit.

    The Tribal court found in favor of the tribes and assessed multi-million dollar damages and the Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

    Thereafter, Water Wheel and Johnson sought relief in U.S. District Court from the Tribal Court judgment, claiming that the Judge (Gary LaRance) had no power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-member (non-Indian owned) corporation, or a non-member who acted only as an agent of the corporation.

    The U.S. District Court's decision said that "The most compelling facts in support of a consensual relationship between Water Wheel and CRIT are Water Wheel's 32-year lease of tribal land and its three-year hold-over tenancy on that land.

    A lease is one of the classic examples of a consensual relationship cited by the Supreme Court... Indeed, it is difficult to think of a more consensual relationship than a non-member's occupancy of tribal land under a formal written agreement with the tribe."

    The court also wrote that "In an attempt to overcome the virtually dispositive fact of the lease, Plaintiffs argue that the property does not belong to CRIT, that the lease is not valid, and that the lease is with the United States, not CRIT... Plaintiffs quite inconsistently ...assert that they are not challenging the Indian title or reservation status of the land. A federal court judgment [has determined] that the property is owned by the United States 'in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes.'"

    Tribal officials said that CRIT is pursuing damages and eviction of other tenants on the western boundary, who have not paid their rents or abided by the terms of their leases.

    "The decision will boost CRIT's efforts on this front and CRIT will proceed with its cases against these lessors in the coming weeks and months," officials said.
    http://www.performanceboats.com//signaturepics/sigpic3592_1.gif
    Special Thanks to:
    Nelson Speed & Marine
    D21 ENT
    J.J. @ Beaver Fab
    Performance Boat Candy

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member Futs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Orange CA, Big River
    Posts
    4,397

    Default

    This should get interesting.

  4. #3
    small member spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    On the water
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    time forthe good ole game of cowboys and indians

  5. #4
    Senior Member stix818's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mohave Valley/Quartzsite
    Posts
    4,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Futs View Post
    This should get interesting.
    Well what's funny is I just received something from "Colorado River Residents for Justice" which totally contradicts the article so who knows.. I'll see if I can scan it and post it.. But like you said it should get interesting if it's true... I know what I would do if they were trying to evict me from my home!!!
    http://www.performanceboats.com//signaturepics/sigpic3592_1.gif
    Special Thanks to:
    Nelson Speed & Marine
    D21 ENT
    J.J. @ Beaver Fab
    Performance Boat Candy

  6. #5
    Don't Taze Me, Bro! BoatCop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Parker, AZ
    Posts
    1,885

    Default

    Indian speak with forked tongue.

    What the article (and the CRIT News Release) DOESN'T say, is that the US District Court said the suit against "Water Wheel" is allowed to continue, since the lease, as it was originally entered into, is valid. However the OWNER, is dismissed from the suit and the District Court barred CRIT from going after the OWNER, since he assumed the lease and never agreed to CRIT Court jurisdiction.

    I don't know all the legal issues, but as I understand it from reading the decision, CRIT would have to go through California Courts to effect the eviction. But in doing so, they would have to waive "Sovereign Immunity" and place themselves under the jurisdiction of the California Courts over this.

    And THEN the issue of the Res boundaries could be raised in CA Courts, as that's the basis for him contesting the eviction.

    Believe me, this isn't over yet.
    Alan
    BoatCop

    Get the latest Boating News at BoatCop Reports!


  7. #6
    Senior Member stix818's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mohave Valley/Quartzsite
    Posts
    4,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoatCop View Post
    Indian speak with forked tongue.

    What the article (and the CRIT News Release) DOESN'T say, is that the US District Court said the suit against "Water Wheel" is allowed to continue, since the lease, as it was originally entered into, is valid. However the OWNER, is dismissed from the suit and the District Court barred CRIT from going after the OWNER, since he assumed the lease and never agreed to CRIT Court jurisdiction.

    I don't know all the legal issues, but as I understand it from reading the decision, CRIT would have to go through California Courts to effect the eviction. But in doing so, they would have to waive "Sovereign Immunity" and place themselves under the jurisdiction of the California Courts over this.

    And THEN the issue of the Res boundaries could be raised in CA Courts, as that's the basis for him contesting the eviction.

    Believe me, this isn't over yet.
    That's exactly what I'm trying to post but struggling with the upload. See if this works. Apparently this was taken off of the CRIT website. If you guys can't read it let me know. This was from Colorado River Residents For Justice.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Water Wheel.JPG 
Views:	743 
Size:	75.0 KB 
ID:	55611  
    http://www.performanceboats.com//signaturepics/sigpic3592_1.gif
    Special Thanks to:
    Nelson Speed & Marine
    D21 ENT
    J.J. @ Beaver Fab
    Performance Boat Candy

  8. #7
    Senior Member Havasu1986's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Yorba Linda & Lake Havasu
    Posts
    6,116

    Thumbs up


  9. #8
    Nine pieces of Eight OCMerrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoatCop View Post
    Indian speak with forked tongue.

    What the article (and the CRIT News Release) DOESN'T say, is that the US District Court said the suit against "Water Wheel" is allowed to continue, since the lease, as it was originally entered into, is valid. However the OWNER, is dismissed from the suit and the District Court barred CRIT from going after the OWNER, since he assumed the lease and never agreed to CRIT Court jurisdiction.

    I don't know all the legal issues, but as I understand it from reading the decision, CRIT would have to go through California Courts to effect the eviction. But in doing so, they would have to waive "Sovereign Immunity" and place themselves under the jurisdiction of the California Courts over this.

    And THEN the issue of the Res boundaries could be raised in CA Courts, as that's the basis for him contesting the eviction.

    Believe me, this isn't over yet.

    What the hell does this really mean? CRIT will have to risk all to play it out. Will they? I mean there is allot of river there on the CA side with tenants paying lease monies.

    A federal court judgment [has determined] that the property is owned by the United States 'in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes.'"
    Last edited by OCMerrill; 09-30-2009 at 04:58 PM.

    Laveycraft 20.8 Sebring, Jeep Rubicon Unlimited, and no cash left.

  10. #9
    Happy Member WishIknew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Under a Rock near ???
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OCMerrill View Post
    What the hell does this really mean? CRIT will have to risk all to play it out. Will they? I mean there is allot of river there on the CA side with tenants paying lease monies.

    A federal court judgment [has determined] that the property is owned by the United States 'in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes.'"
    This is why you NEVER NEVER NEVER Lease INDIAN LAND!!!!!!!!!!!They are the ORIGINAL DRAMA QUEENS X1000

  11. #10
    It's good to be alive
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lake Havasu
    Posts
    1,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoatCop View Post
    Indian speak with forked tongue.

    What the article (and the CRIT News Release) DOESN'T say, is that the US District Court said the suit against "Water Wheel" is allowed to continue, since the lease, as it was originally entered into, is valid. However the OWNER, is dismissed from the suit and the District Court barred CRIT from going after the OWNER, since he assumed the lease and never agreed to CRIT Court jurisdiction.

    I don't know all the legal issues, but as I understand it from reading the decision, CRIT would have to go through California Courts to effect the eviction. But in doing so, they would have to waive "Sovereign Immunity" and place themselves under the jurisdiction of the California Courts over this.

    And THEN the issue of the Res boundaries could be raised in CA Courts, as that's the basis for him contesting the eviction.

    Believe me, this isn't over yet.
    Very interesting. This will go on for a while.

  12. #11
    TRG
    TRG is offline
    Senior Member TRG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,710

    Default

    What a mess! the Indians are a pain in the ass, Has anyone here bought gas from them Up at the AVI? they are the most rude (Using this term as loose as two dollar whore!) "Human beings" I have ever had the dis-pleasure to deal with!
    A few years ago a "American-Mexican" (Self proclaimed American first!) friend of mine and I were leaving Parker one evening, and we stopped at a road side taco joint, these indians spoke perfect Spanish from mex. served up my buddy Ramon, and left me standing there as they made his food in completion! I waited a few more minutes and they finally took my order in almost anger toward me!...I waited 20 more minutes before they gave me "shit on a shingle" compared to the same shit I ordered as Ramon!
    this is why I feel that the Southern Indians need to recognize that we bring revenue to their shitty comunities more than half the year at a time!
    Without the "round eye"/"White Devil" such as myself, he would not be able to afford the KMart brand Traxx tennies he is rocking on the side of that road cooking food, im not the one offering food to the passer by's and treating them like shit am I???
    Double standards are B.S. I drink from the same drinking fountains as everyone else! get over the hang ups already!
    Sorry for my rant guys!
    Whitey...out!
    P.S. I married a filipina, so I can say this crap!!

  13. #12
    Been here a while BigBoyBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntington Beach, California, United States
    Posts
    610

    Default

    Screw CRIT and their nation within a nation bullshit.

    Big deal, white people took your land over 200 years ago.

    Those fat lazy Indians would have lost it regardless.

    They hate the white man but rely on the white man's dime.

    Whatever happened to living off the land. I bet not even 10% of them can grow food without killing the plant before harvest.
    What the f*ck Guss.

    Coleman Motorsports 1623
    Hutchins Motorsports
    Hyevon Choppers

  14. #13
    Resident Ford Nut Sleeper CP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego County
    Posts
    9,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoatCop View Post
    Indian speak with forked tongue.

    What the article (and the CRIT News Release) DOESN'T say, is that the US District Court said the suit against "Water Wheel" is allowed to continue, since the lease, as it was originally entered into, is valid. However the OWNER, is dismissed from the suit and the District Court barred CRIT from going after the OWNER, since he assumed the lease and never agreed to CRIT Court jurisdiction.

    I don't know all the legal issues, but as I understand it from reading the decision, CRIT would have to go through California Courts to effect the eviction. But in doing so, they would have to waive "Sovereign Immunity" and place themselves under the jurisdiction of the California Courts over this.

    And THEN the issue of the Res boundaries could be raised in CA Courts, as that's the basis for him contesting the eviction.

    Believe me, this isn't over yet.
    Now that's very interesting

    How many tenants at Water wheel ?

    S CP

    "Dark Sarcasm"
    Going fast is only half the fun ... what you make go
    fast is the other half.
    " A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"

  15. #14
    Senior Expert BK2DRVR's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orange Hills - Mohave Valley
    Posts
    248

    Default

    We almost purchased in there about 5 years ago. We were working with Bob and his wife on bringing a new mobilehome in there. We di*ked around for two years because of this mess and then finally bailed out and bought real property in Mohave Valley. Glad we did and glad I own real property and not paying a lease.
    Everytime I leave for the river I say to myself "there's no place on this planet I'd rather be going right now".

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91