Lower river imfo.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 22

Thread:
Lower river imfo.

  1. #1
    DJD
    DJD is offline
    6TH STREET MAFIA PRES. DJD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Closer to the river than you!
    Posts
    1,493

    Default Lower river imfo.

    Here is some cool imfo that my pops sent me. He sends this stuff to me all the time and i thought some of you would be interested.



    Dear River Area Residents,



    On Saturday we filed our second request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court. If granted, the proceedings in CRIT tribal court would he halted, at least temporarily, and with luck permanently.



    The primary basis for the TRO is that Public Law 88-302 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from leasing for the benefit of CRIT. Without leasing authority, a lease cannot contain provisions that assert any type of CRIT control over the lease. Without control over the lease, the CRIT tribal court cannot have jurisdiction over lease disputes.



    In addition, we have asserted, and offered a considerable volume of documentation as proof, that the CRIT tribal court has effectively prevented us from introducing relevant evidence that would prove the CRIT court lacks jurisdiction in California. There is also evidence that CRIT's attorneys and their attorney general have had improper contacts with the tribal court judge. The tribal court judge has ruled on their motions before our responses were due. The judge has also vacated his own orders without ever receiving any request from our side to do so. This is highly improper conduct!



    The TRO was supported by seven declarations that contain relevant facts. It is our position that CRIT has engaged in a pattern of conduct that is intended to harass and intimidate California residents. The declarations were from area contractors attesting that CRIT has told them to cease work at certain projects or they would never work on reservation land again. These projects were on land where the owners were involved in disputes with CRIT. We also submitted a declaration from Craig Chute, a former CRIT employee. Mr. Chute attested to the fact that in the fifteen years he worked for CRIT it was his opinion that it was CRIT tribal council policy to harass and intimidate residents who were in disputes with CRIT. It was also his opinion that CRIT interfered with development at certain areas to reduce competition with parks where CRIT had a greater financial interest.



    The next few weeks will be critical. We will send out updates as soon as we have any new information.



    Board of Directors

    Colorado River Residents for Justice

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Large Member edog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Riverside, Ca
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Too bad this didn't happen years ago. Maybe Bill and his family would still be running the Red Rooster. Yeah, I know people think it was a shiit hole and some things might have gone on there, that maybe shouldn't have. But to one day just bulldose the park seems a little unreasonable, to me.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Pattymelt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edog View Post
    Too bad this didn't happen years ago. Maybe Bill and his family would still be running the Red Rooster. Yeah, I know people think it was a shiit hole and some things might have gone on there, that maybe shouldn't have. But to one day just bulldose the park seems a little unreasonable, to me.
    Pay the rent check and the place would still be there. Big river does, aha, does hidden valley ,rio del sol the list goes on and on. Good post danny.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Large Member edog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Riverside, Ca
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pattymelt18 View Post
    Pay the rent check and the place would still be there. Big river does, aha, does hidden valley ,rio del sol the list goes on and on. Good post danny.
    Pay the rent on the original lease or change the lease half way into it?

  7. #5
    Senior Member Constant840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Yucaipa, Ca
    Posts
    911

    Default

    I have been following this for a while now. I am not a member of the CRR4J, but I have been receiving their mailings since before their official inception.

    This goes alot farther than Water Wheel. The outcome of this situation will likely have an affect on residents up and down the Ca side.

    I encourage every one to visit thier website for more information.

  8. #6
    Large Member edog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Riverside, Ca
    Posts
    679

    Default

    last summer somebody had a pretty good thread in the Hotboat forums about this.
    Last edited by edog; 05-14-2008 at 05:56 PM.

  9. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Anza, CA - Lost Lake, CA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    What is the website address???

  10. #8
    Large Member edog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Riverside, Ca
    Posts
    679

    Default

    http://www.citizensalliance.org/Majo...sues%20%20.htm
    This is one link. The article is a little long.

  11. #9
    Senior Member Big River Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Thanks Danny,
    I went to a meeting in Big River presented by Tim Moore from the CCR4J. I sure hope something can be done.

  12. #10
    Large Member edog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Riverside, Ca
    Posts
    679

    Default

    As far as the lease for the Water Wheel.
    http://www.crr4justice.com/uploads/1..._Neighbors.pdf
    I wonder how much it cost to retain there attorney, just to keep there original lease with the Critters.

  13. #11
    Senior Member Constant840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Yucaipa, Ca
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edog View Post
    As far as the lease for the Water Wheel.
    http://www.crr4justice.com/uploads/1..._Neighbors.pdf
    I wonder how much it cost to retain there attorney, just to keep there original lease with the Critters.
    This case begun as a fight over lease amounts and still has its roots there. it has now gone far beyond that. The goal now is to have the Federal courts make a clear ruling on who actually has contol of the land in question. A descision that could affect the entire west bank.
    So you pay your rent and they let you stay... what about the extra utility taxes you pay? What about when you want to fix your place up and are not granted a permit or have to pay an inflated permit fee? What about when your lease comes up for renewal and you are priced right out of your space?
    It was stated upon inception that CRR4J would be an action oriented organization. From what I have seen they have proven to be just that. I have participated in letter writing campaings that they have organized and will continue to lend my support where I can.
    Please read up...

  14. #12
    DJD
    DJD is offline
    6TH STREET MAFIA PRES. DJD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Closer to the river than you!
    Posts
    1,493

    Default

    Ill keep posting these as my Dad emails them to me if ya want just to keep everyone up to speed. This deals with alot more than just the Big River area its basicaly affecting the entire ca side of the lower river.

  15. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Anza, CA - Lost Lake, CA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Thanks for the info. Please keep posting them Danny. RR

  16. #14
    Senior Member Constant840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Yucaipa, Ca
    Posts
    911

    Thumbs up Latest...

    Dear River Area Residents:

    The attached letter to the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary was written on the recommendation of our honorary board member, Cheryl Schmit, of Stand Up for California. It may well serve as an introduction of our organization to Sacramento officials who are unaware of the many inconsistencies in state and county policies relating to matters involving the Colorado River Indian Tribe (CRIT) and non-tribal members.

    You previously received the timeline for our hearings and responses, so you know our attorneys are going to be busy the next two weeks. We are all hopeful of a positive outcome.








    COLORADO RIVER RESIDENTS FOR JUSTICE
    EQUAL RIGHTS AND FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL
    P.O. Box 1099 Telephone 760-922-9653
    Blythe, California 92225 Facsimile 760-922-8299
    Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.CRR4Justice.com

    May 14, 2008
    Office of the Governor
    Attention: Andrea Lynn Hoch
    Legal Affairs Secretary
    State Capital
    Sacramento, California 95814 RE: Colorado River Indian Reservation

    Dear Secretary Hoch:

    We are writing this letter to seek your assistance in the resolution of the controversy over the western boundary of the reservation for the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT). This dispute has been ongoing for well over fifty years. We would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the State’s role in resolving this dispute.

    The State of California has participated in many aspects of this dispute. In the three Arizona v. California water rights cases, the State advocated that the western boundary of the CRIT Reservation did not extend into California in the area that was the subject of that dispute. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, (1983), and others. In United States v. Aranson, 696 F.2d 654, (9th Cir. 1983), the State’s position was that the western boundary was the middle of the Colorado River and did not include land in California. Mr. Ken Williams, Esq., California Deputy Attorney General has been extremely helpful in explaining the State’s litigation strategy in Aranson. The State’s policy in the Arizona v. California cases and Aranson is consistent: the State aggressively, and successfully, resisted CRIT’s challenges to the sovereignty of the State of California.

    In your letter of December 28, 2006 to Mr. Clay Gregory, Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you, very persuasively, asserted that the Act of April 8, 1864, 13 Stat. 39, (the 1864 Act) specifically limited the number of Indian Reservations the Executive Branch was authorized to create in California. See also the letter of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer to Congressman Mike Thompson dated June 4, 2002. The CRIT Reservation is not one of the four authorized by the 1864 Act. The CRIT Reservation is not one of the congressionally authorized exceptions to the 1864 Act. There has never been a specific Congressional Act authorizing the CRIT Reservation to extend into California.

    Based on your letter, we believe it is the position of the State of California that the CRIT Reservation could not legally extend into California unless Congress enacted legislation that authorized such an extension, and specifically overruled the 1864 Act. In 1969, CRIT persuaded the Secretary of the Interior to issue an unauthorized opinion that an executive order in 1876 included land in California in the CRIT Reservation. CRIT then argued that this land entitled CRIT to additional water rights. In the water rights cases, California argued that CRIT should not be entitled to additional water rights based on its assertion that the 1876 Executive Order had expanded the reservation into California. The United States Supreme Court rejected the Secretary’s unauthorized boundary determination and refused to issue additional water rights to CRIT. However, the Supreme Court never addressed the fact that the 1876 Executive Order violated the 1864 Act. Before the Secretarial opinion, the California Attorney General had issued an opinion that the land that became the subject of the Secretary’s opinion was not part of the CRIT Reservation. See 1963 Attorney General’s Opinions, Vol. 42, p.147.

    For a more complete description of the State’s participation in this dispute, please see the attached document entitled “THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBE’S WESTERN BOUNDARY DISPUTE, An Inconsistent Application of State Policy and Taxpayer’s Resources, February 13, 2008. Also, please see our website referenced above for more information on the boundary dispute. In particular, see “THE DISPUTED CALIFORNIA BOUNDARY OF THE COLORADO RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION, dated March 22, 2007, updated on January 31, 2008. We have also attached a copy of information we recently prepared on Public Law 88-302 that prevents the Secretary of the Interior from leasing land in California until the boundary dispute is resolved. We have a tremendous amount of research information that has been compiled over the last ten years. We would be pleased to share any information that would help answer any questions you may have.

    The urgency of this request to meet with you is due to CRIT’s recent commencement of litigation in their tribal court involving California residents. CRIT seeks a determination that their tribal court is the tribunal for litigating disputes between California residents and CRIT. Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. and Robert Johnson. See case number CV-CO-2007-0100, in the Tribal Court of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (hereafter Water Wheel). Federal and state courts are available forums; CRIT chose not to utilize them.

    Andrea Lynn Hoch Colorado River Residents for Justice
    May 14, 2008
    Page 2

    This is the first time CRIT has taken this bold and unprecedented step. The CRIT tribal court judge has refused to allow the defendants to introduce evidence that the CRIT court could not have jurisdiction over lease disputes when it lacks the legal ability to lease the land. Defendant’s jurisdictional appeals to the CRIT appellate court have been denied. Every motion filed by CRIT has been granted. Every motion filed by the defendants has been denied. The defendants have never consented to tribal court jurisdiction. We believe this case is a prelude to more aggressive CRIT action in California. If successful with Water Wheel, CRIT will undoubtedly attempt to force California residents to utilize the CRIT tribal court as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution between the residents and CRIT.

    Certainly, the residents would face prohibitively expensive, and potentially biased, litigation in CRIT tribal court before attempting to have a federal court hear any jurisdiction challenges. And, if CRIT prevails in the current litigation, they would surely use the Water Wheel case in an attempt to establish a binding precedent of tribal court jurisdiction. In addition, a tribal court victory may very well embolden CRIT to attempt to reopen the water rights cases to seek additional rights based on the Water Wheel case.

    The difficult plight of the California residents along the Colorado River is exacerbated by the policies adopted by the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. These counties defer to CRIT in essential matters such as building permits, building inspections, access to utility services and taxation. CRIT has used its control over these vital services to threaten and coerce the residents to agree to CRIT policies that benefit CRIT to the disadvantage of the residents. In the many years we have worked on these matters, we have never been successful in obtaining clarification of these county policies from county officials. This is particularly troublesome in light of the overwhelming authority that established that this land is not part of the CRIT Reservation. The policies of these counties are contrary to the position adopted by the State of California in the Supreme Court and Aranson cases: as well as, the California Attorney General’s opinion and that expressed in your letter and that of Mr. Lockyer.

    We have extensive documentation of what we believe to be unfair treatment of the California residents by CRIT. This unfair treatment includes, but is not limited to; forceful evictions without a court order, destruction and removal of the resident’s property, termination of utility services to occupied residences, threats of forceful evictions for failure to comply with CRIT demands, unfair taxation, threats to workers to stop work on projects wherein the landowner was in a dispute with CRIT, egregious violations of negotiated contract rights, and many others. This information can be readily provided upon request. Many residents support our efforts anonymously for fear of CRIT reprisal. Other residents take no action at all based on CRIT’s harsh treatment in the past and fear of future retaliation by CRIT.

    Extensive efforts to involve our political representatives have been futile. Attached are the most recent examples of our attempts to engage Congressman Jerry Lewis, Congressman Edward R. Royce, California Assemblyman Bill Maze, and Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson. Also attached is a letter from Congresswoman Mary Bono. In her letter she mentions that CRIT has expressed a willingness to negotiate lease extensions with the residents. We are in daily contact with many residents of this area. We are not aware of any effort by CRIT to negotiate lease extensions. On the contrary, CRIT has consistently refused to discuss lease extensions. There are many other examples of our attempts to work with federal officials and officials at all levels of government in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

    We respectfully seek a meeting with you to discuss these matters. We appreciate that you have a very busy schedule. The urgency of the pending Water Wheel litigation and the need for clarification of the State’s policies forces us to attempt to impose on your schedule. Our belief is that CRIT’s attempts to expand the jurisdiction of its court, coupled with the need to establish a State policy that is consistently applied, justify the imposition that we seek. This matter is of great importance to the thousands of California residents negatively affected by CRIT actions over the past few decades. Thank you in advance for any courtesy you see fit to extend in this matter.

    Respectfully submitted



    Tim Moore
    For the Colorado River Residents for Justice

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 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.

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

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Tags for this Thread

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 92 93 94 95