Mexican Descendants Win in Colo. Court

Colorado Descendants of Mexican Settlers Win Court Ruling on Access to Ranch Land

DENVER Dec. 10 — Fences that have kept descendants of Mexican settlers from grazing cattle and gathering firewood on a southern Colorado mountain will soon come down.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a state high court decision that concluded descendants of the original settlers had the right to use the 77,500-acre Taylor Ranch in the San Luis Valley.

"They never thought they could get it back, but we've won," Shirley Romero Otero, a descendant of settlers, said Wednesday. "Now I see people with hope and lots of pride."

Jeff Goldstein, a lawyer representing the descendants, said, "It's really a vindication of their rights. They've been saying this for over 40 years."

Stephen Kinnaird, a lawyer involved in the Supreme Court case representing the ranch owners, declined comment.

The 14,047-foot Culebra Peak and surrounding ranch land, about 180 miles south of Denver, became a part of the United States in 1848 after the Mexican-American war. Residents used it for hunting, grazing and gathering wood to build and heat their adobe homes.

The battle began in 1960 after North Carolina timberman Jack Taylor bought the land, including the mountain.

Taylor put up a fence and ordered that trespassers be shot. There were frequent reports of tensions and beatings between the ranch and the valley residents.

With the Supreme Court challenge scuttled, the descendants and the current owners must agree on a management plan for the property, as ordered by the state court, before access is allowed.

They must also trace property titles back to when the settlers first arrived under a land grant from Mexico since only current property holders who are descendants have access rights. The state court ordered the ranch owners to pay for that work.

Otero, 48, remembers joining her family and neighbors on a summer trek to the land to gather enough wood for the winter. It wasn't just a chore, she recalls, but a big social event where the children would play and everyone would picnic together.

"I just want to go up there, at my age, and enjoy the spirituality of the mountain, the beautiful surroundings and the peace and tranquility that it will bring to me," Otero said.

From the San Luis Courier:
High Court opens up Taylor Ranch access
Jun 25 2002 12:00AM By By SYLVIA LOBATO

By SYLVIA LOBATO
SAN LUIS - Although many of its original participants didn't live to see it, the latest round in the decades-old battle over access to the Taylor Ranch has been decided in their favor.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a split decision Monday, said landowners have rights of access for grazing, firewood and timber, but not for fishing, hunting or recreation.

The long-running lawsuit was filed on behalf of the herederos - local residents who are the sixth- and seventh-generation descendants of the Mexican settlers of Beaubien's land grant.

History of this property rights controversy began before Colorado's statehood, at a time when southern Colorado was part of Mexico; at a time when all of the parties' lands were part of the one million acre Sangre de Cristo grant, an 1844 Mexican land grant.

In the latest chapter - a 40-year-old feud over the land - the state Supreme Court reversed an Appeals Court ruling Monday and said landowners have some access to the "Mountain Tract," now owned by former Houston Enron executive Lou Pai.

In 1999, Pai bought the ranch, also called the Culebra Ranch and the Jaroso Creek Ranch, for $23 million between 1997 and 2000 as he was cashing out $353.7 million in Enron stock.

Pai's chief contribution to the conflict has been to beef up security. He fenced out the locals far more effectively than the previous landowners ever could.

His people have diligently pursued trespassing complaints, and confrontations with neighboring landowners have led to claims and counterclaims of assault and harassment.

While Pai has been applauded by some for his willingness to hire local help and his commitment to restore areas of the ranch that were damaged by intensive logging during the latter years of the Taylor regime, others decry his efforts to cut off access to the mountain and to buy up neighboring properties and water rights.

When New Bern, N.C. Lumberman Jack T. Taylor bought the land for $500,000 from some Denver businessmen in 1960, he was aware that the sellers had tolerated a little trespassing and poaching; in fact, his deed contained a caution that his title was possibly "subject to claims of the local people...to the right to pasturage, wood, and lumber and so-called settlements."

At less than $7 an acre, it's been speculated that Taylor figured he could handle any trouble that went with it.

Ten years ago, a state commission spearheaded by Ken Salazar - then a lawyer in private practice, now Colorado's attorney general - tried to purchase the Taylor Ranch, with the aim of transforming the property into a state park.

In a formal statement as attorney general, Salazar said he has long been interested in bringing about a permanent and final resolution to the "decades-old dispute" concerning the ranch.

However, he said that, because the litigation has gone on for so long and has been so contentious, he doesn't believe the Court's ruling necessarily means an end to the litigation.

"It is possible that a motion for reconsideration will be filed with the (Supreme Court. It is also possible that a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court will be filed, resulting in additional months, even years, of ongoing litigation," Salazar warned.

"Nonetheless, as a result of today's ruling, there lay perhaps over the next several years be a way of crafting a solution that is satisfactory to all the interests involved, instead of continued litigation," he added.

"This case has been around for 21 years," notes Denver attorney Jeff Goldstein, who represents the plaintiffs. "It's been before a large number of judges. A lot of our clients have died."

"How can you use something for a hundred years and not have a right to it?" Goldstein asks.

Landowners who are the successors in title to the original settlers on the Sangre de Cristo grant, an 1844 Mexican land grant, claim access and use rights to property commonly known as the Taylor Ranch or The Mountain Tract.

The landowners claim that rights to graze livestock, gather firewood and timber, hunt, fish and recreate, derive from Mexican law, prescription and express or implied grant.

Both the trial court and the court of appeals held that the landowners have no legally enforceable rights.

An opinion written by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey said that evidence of traditional settlement practices, repeated references to settlement rights in documents associated with the Sangre de Cristo grant including Taylor's own deed, the 100- year history of the landowners' use of the Taylor Ranch, and other evidence of necessity, reliance and intention support a finding of implied rights in the Taylor Ranch.

Specifically, the landowners have several easements from prior use to access and use the Taylor Ranch for grazing, firewood, and timber.

The high court also retains jurisdiction to determine which landowners may exercise these rights.

The plaintiffs were the successors to the original settlers on the Sangre de Cristo grant, an 1844 Mexican land grant, who claimed access and use rights to graze livestock, gather firewood and timber, hunt, fish and recreate.

The mountain tract is considered the lifeblood of the communities that exist in its watershed, including San Luis, the state's oldest incorporated town.

For more than a century, locals used "la sierra" (the mountain) communally, as summer pasture for their cattle and as a source of game, recreation and firewood - activities based on "historic use rights" awarded by Mexican custom and confirmed by treaty, but never formally recognized in an American courtroom.

In 1844, the governor of New Mexico granted two Mexican nationals a one million-acre land grant, located mainly in present-day southern Colorado (Sangre de Cristo grant), for the purpose of settlement.

The original grantees died during the war between the United States and Mexico. The land was not settled in earnest until after the cessation of the war, and Charles (Carlos) Beaubien then owned the grant.

After Beaubien died, his heirs sold his interest in the Sangre de Cristo grant to William Gilpin, Colorado's first territorial governor.

The sales agreement (Gilpin agreement) stated that Gilpin agreed to provide vara (strip) deeds to settlers who had not yet received them. The agreement further stated that Gilpin took the land on condition that certain "settlement rights before then conceded... to the residents of the settlements ... shall be confirmed by said William Gilpin as made by him."

Unfortunately, those rights weren't spelled out with regard to la sierra.

Since then, the land has been at the center of bitter court battles and boundary disputes that have occasionally erupted in violence.

The feud began when Taylor bought the ranch, began fencing it and denied access. After his father's death in the 1980s, Zachary Taylor permitted various groups to use the land for picnics, wood-gathering and religious celebrations. But the limited access did little to aid the county's traditional agrarian economy.

Before the Taylor purchase the people had depended on the mountain tract for summer pastures, wood for heat and building, even meat and fish for the dinner table.

Losing the pastures forced many local ranchers to drastically reduce their herds or go out of business.

Costilla is among the state's poorest and has little or no public lands.

The Supreme Court said Taylor had no right to bar his neighbors from his land.

''We find that evidence of traditional settlement practices... and other evidence of necessity, reliance, and intention support a finding of implied rights in this case,'' the Supreme Court said.

"The high court also retains jurisdiction to determine which landowners may exercise these rights."

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

Upholding the treaty is what it looks like from this article.

State Supreme Court rules for access to Taylor Ranch
By ERIN SMITH
The Pueblo Chieftain

SAN LUIS - The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday ruled on behalf of the petitioners in a 21-year-old lawsuit with roots in the 19th century.

In a 4-2 decision, with one justice abstaining, the state’s highest court said that landowners in Colorado’s oldest town can access La Sierra, also known as "the Mountain Tract," purchased by the late North Carolina lumberman Jack T. Taylor in 1960, for some of the historic uses they claimed: namely to graze livestock, gather firewood and cut timber.

Three other historic uses the petitioners claimed under the 1844 Mexican land grant were for hunting, fishing and recreation on the 77,500-acre ranch that now belongs to energy magnate Lou Pai.

Both the trial court and the court of appeals held that the landowners have no legally enforceable rights. The petitioners claimed their rights under Mexican law, prescription and an express or implied grant from Carlos Beaubien in 1863.

In its ruling Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court noted that the landowners claimed that community rights to common lands not only are recognized by Mexican law, but also are integral to the settlement of an area. The landowners pointed out that in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States government agreed that the land rights of the residents of the ceded territories would be "inviolably respected." Under the landowners’ theory, the treaty dictates that the court apply Mexican law to the Taylor Ranch and accordingly recognize the settlement rights.

The landowners further argued that use rights could be found via prescription. For this claim, they pointed to their regular use of the Taylor Ranch land for more than 100 years until the area was fenced in 1960.

Lastly, the landowners asserted that their use rights were obtained by either an express or implied grant from Beaubien in 1863. For this claim, the landowners relied primarily on the Beaubien Document.

In its ruling the Court said, "Evidence of traditional settlement practices, repeated references to settlement rights in documents associated with the Sangre de Cristo grant including Taylor’s deed, the 100-year history of the landowners’ use of the Taylor Ranch, and other evidence of necessity, reliance, and intention support a finding of implied rights in the Taylor Ranch."

Jeff Goldstein, one of the attorneys for the Land Rights Council, which brought the suit in 1981, said in a telephone conversation from Denver on Monday that any appeal would be to the United States Supreme Court. But any appeal would be after issues the state Supreme Court wants briefed occur.

Goldstein called Monday’s decision a "wonderful result. It was everything we could ask for. . . It obviously would have been nice if the (Justice Alex) Martinez view won out," allowing the hunting, fishing and recreation rights.

Goldstein said all the facts his clients argued were in the decision. He called the decision "significant" in land grant cases in general.

Under an 1863 document, land grant owner Beaubien gave area residents the right to pasture, firewood and timber on what is now known as the Taylor Ranch. In 1960, Taylor bought the ranch and closed it off to local residents. Over the years, there was some violence. There were allegations by locals that Taylor’s men used violence against them, beating some people up who trespassed onto his land. Once, Taylor, himself, was shot in the ankle.

Twenty-five years ago, community organizer Ray Otero of Grand Junction was asked by a local friend, Gene Sanchez, to come to San Luis and help organize local residents for a restoration of their historic rights.

Otero, now 56, disabled and retired, said from his Grand Junction home that he helped found the Land Rights Council in 1977 and has always believed the group’s cause was just. "We are seeing justice done finally," Otero said.

Both Goldstein and Otero said the case was meticulously researched and dogged determination for the justice of the people’s cause produced the desired result. Taylor’s heirs, led by son Zachary Taylor, continued the late lumberman’s fight against the local residents. Pai bought the ranch in 1999 for $23 million with money the Securities and Exchange Commission maintains he obtained between 1997 and 2000 from cashing out $353.7 million in Enron stock. Whether Pai intends to appeal the decision, was not known on Monday. Otero said that if the Colorado Supreme Court had not ruled in the petitioners’ favor, they would have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court so he assumes Pai will.

Goldstein said that dozens of lawyers have worked on the case without charge. Court costs have been borne by the petitioners. Costs and damages weren’t requested in the suit. With the lengthy case, number of courts involved and various appeals, he estimated that 30 judges have been involved in the case.

Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, who said she and Justice Nancy Rice did not believe that the landowners had established their right to use the Taylor Ranch lands as they claimed, wrote the dissenting opinion.

"They cannot, in my view, rely upon the Beaubien Document because it did not comply with the laws in effect at the time of its execution by failing to identify specific grantees. The document was not ambiguous, and therefore cannot support rights by implication. Further, none of the theories for implication of an easement apply to these facts," Kourlis said. Attorney General Ken Salazar, in a statement from his office on Monday, said he did not think the high court’s ruling meant an end to the litigation because of the contentiousness of the case. He raised the possibility of a motion for reconsideration by the court and even a possibility of a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. He suggested the possibility of crafting a solution satisfactory to all interests in lieu of continued litigation.
http://www.chieftain.com/display/archive/2002/june/25/ni2.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.