The Statute of Limitations protects against frivolous lawsuits. However, the Statute of Limitations was not established to conceal wrongdoings by federal agencies. This petition for a Writ of Certiorari is requested because the Statute of Limitations is being used to conceal past wrongdoings by the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management. This review is requested because justice in this case will not be served in lower courts against federal agencies.

The claim in this case dates back to the mid 1920s when racial segregation and discrimination was socially acceptable and the Constitutional Rights of African Americans were violated with impunity until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On the surface, it sounds like this case is outdated and the violations in the claims are things that happened over (90) years. A defense attorney would make it sound like the () claim happened years ago or decades ago. The violations started decades ago, and they continue today because the Bureau of Reclamation is supporting a decision by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that delayed a decision to support the land on the Yuma Island infinitely.

Question: African Americans as a protected group, Constitutional Rights were violated during the administration of the Yuma Reclamation Project, and it is being concealed by the Statute of Limitations. The U.S. Attorney and the Attorney Generals of Arizona and California are using the Statute of Limitations and Sovereign Immunity to deny justice for Constitutional Rights violations. How do we insure that valid claims of Constitutional Rights violations that contain elements of fraud are not dismissed as frivolous claims?

Question: In case CV-17-3390-DJH, the States of Arizona, California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Bureau of Reclamation are Defendants. Arizona and California are invoking the 11' Amendment's Sovereign Immunity Protection and the U.S. Attorney representing the Bureau of Reclamation is using the Statute of Limitations as justification to dismiss this case for time barred. The case in the District Court in Arizona is for the fraudulent taking of water rights within the Yuma Reclamation Project that is being administered by the Bureau of Reclamation.

The 11" Amendment Sovereign Immunity Protection is being used by the States of Arizona and California to conceal Constitutional Rights violations, They violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection laws. In the Phoenix case, the 14' Amendment is being challenged by the 11th Amendment Sovereign Immunity protection. When the U.S. Constitution is violated, when does the 14th Amendment trump the 111k Amendment Sovereign Immunity Protection Clause?

Question: Paragraph 11(D) (5) stated that water will be reduced by 6.4 acre feet of water per acre once it is determined how many acres the railroad used as a right-of-way. Based on this statement, why did the Supreme Court authorize more water for the Mohave and the Colorado River Indian reservations and not a reduction of water? The Quechan Indian tribe claim was based on land in the 1893 Agreement. The land in the 1893 Agreement was non-farmable that doesn't qualify for reclamation water as mandated by the 1902 Reclamation Act, why were the Quechan tribe authorized more water by the Supreme Court?

Question: In 1968, the Bureau of Reclamation reported 15,000 acres for the Yuma Reclamation Project in California, and Metropolitan Water District of California reported 25,000 acres for the Yuma Project in California. In fact, the Bureau of

Whether valid claims of constitutional rights violations containing elements of fraud should be dismissed as frivolous due to the statute of limitations