Comments on: Court speaks: CRIT and Residents see judgment differently

By: Hey, hey hey

Hey, hey hey — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:05:47 +0000

There is two seperate issues involved. Lease issue and also does C.R.I.T. profound claim on another state as their land really fly? Of course, it is unfortunate that C.R.I.T. chooses to conduct their “sovereign nation” business different from the United States Constitution which is why C.R.I.T. always gets into trouble. Living here in Parker with this jurisdictional issues (the only one of its kind), I understand very well residents are not protected by state or federal laws involving tribal members. Oh yeah, go get an eviction notice in California and let’s see how well it is received and let’s see who will enforce this eviction. Because yeah, C.R.I.T. does not have any law enforcement abilities in the State of California. If I were residents of Water Wheel, I would stand my ground. A good ole’ fashion mexican stand off. It is not the fault of the people that these boundry issues are not resolved and the courts and Congress are unable to. Also, it is not the people’s fault that a “sovereign nation” in the United States of America acts like a dictatorship and a mafia. I have grown very sick of C.R.I.T.’S government and their operations. Let’s not leave out-GREED!

By: InTheKnow

InTheKnow — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:59:36 +0000

The issue is that only Congress can set reservation boundaries. The Act of Congress that created the CRIT reservation set the boundary as the Colorado River, and it allowed for natural changes in the river course. The area in California that CRIT now claims was declared by the Secretary of the Interior, NOT Congress.

CRIT claimed, in getting back the La Paz Lands, that the Secretary of the Interior had no authority to take those lands away, but in this case state that the Secretary of the Interior CAN set boundaries, like was done for the California land.

Which is it? Even a “sovereign nation” can’t have it both ways. Why do they claim “immunity” whenever the issue is brought up? Why won’t they let a court decide? Is it that they are afraid they’ll lose?

As long as they keep it out of court, they can continue to claim it’s theres.

By: John Wright

John Wright — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:57:38 +0000

INDN- According to the Residents group’s press release above, CRIT seeking an Order of Eviction means having to sign such a waiver:

“CRIT cannot evict Water Wheel Resort unless it first obtains an Order of Eviction from a state court. However, filing such an action constitutes a tribal waiver of sovereign immunity…”

By: INDN

INDN — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:56:17 +0000

Us Natives can NOT be sued in court unless we WAIVE our Sovereignty. If and only when, the CRIT expressed and wrote down that they gave up their Sovereignty, then it MAY go that direction. But since it does not appear that way, CRIT has final say so on it’s land, and boundaries where it ends/starts is their own assertion. AZ, CA, they are in the RIGHT.
Aho!

By: John Wright

John Wright — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:21:06 +0000

Over .40- You're right of course, this is a landlord-tenant dispute. The Residents group, whether they're right or wrong, seem to feel however that there are certain legal problems with CRIT's claim to ownership of the land - citing, for instance, the socalled 'Four Reservations Act' stipulating that there may only be 4 reservations in the state of California - and are using this case to push those legal issues to the forefront. I suspect you're right that it doesn't fly, but it may come down to the next stage for this case in the courts before that is affirmed one way or the other to the party's satisfaction. By the way, if anyone would like to read the claims of Colorado River Residents For Justice, you can visit their website HERE.

By: Over .40

Over .40 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:37:12 +0000

Airing both sides of the issue is swell. I think Mr. Wright misstates the role of the Courts however. It is Congress who makes the laws, and the courts who interpret those laws in response to facts presented in each particular case. Occasionally, a court may declare a statute unconstitutional – either how it is written, or how it works in real life. Here, there is a simple landlord-tennant dispute, into which Water Wheel and Johnson have attempted to squeeze a “land title” issue to avoid their contractual obligations. It doesn’t fly – title to the land in question was established, by law, in 1876, and affirmed, by the Federal Courts in 1975 – read the decisions for yourselves – they are public record now.

By: Dine' law student

Dine' law student — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:29:14 +0000

word.

By: Dine' attorney

Dine' attorney — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:14:02 +0000

Sorry for the Bob Johnson folks but whoever put the press release out states CRIT needs to obtain an order of eviction from a state court. Rather CRIT can obtain one from their own courts since the judgement rendered favours their stand. Good luck finding another trailer park to trash…