Can I supersize that Lawsuit?

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, thanks for proving my point of how vocal some will be in defense of this small change. If you look further at the GOA reports, you will find how they admit to having very little record of actual payments made, to whom, and for how much.

You will not get banned. You know that. So, please continue to prove my point of how viciously the users of this new found franchise jackpot will fight to keep it intact.

And you want to talk about painting with broad brushes and generalizations, go read your post again. Pot- meet Kettle.



This should make for some very interesting discussion.

How do you want to fund 25 years of holding the government responsible for Salmon and Steelhead on the Columbia and Snake rivers?

Or would you prefer there would not be 25 years of lawsuits to the point where Judge Redden retired from the bench and but RETAINED authority over salmon issues?



You do realise that these groups don't have a "profit model" other than your strawman? And, as a CPA, do you really think "profit" is equal to the amount above the attorney's wage rate? I have never seen a professional services firm that doesn't have overhead from an accounting standpoint.

It can be just as important to hold the State Land Board responsible in State Courts.

How about we turn the hands of time back to 1995, likely before you had became an advocate of My Public Lands and revisit the Idaho State Land Board and the Idaho Legislature as they sought to violate the State Constitution.

The Land Board manages 2.5 million acres of Idaho School Endowment Fund land, and in selling or leasing the holdings, earns money that goes to the state’s schools.

Under a so-called "Anti-Marvel" law of 1995, the state Legislature directed the Land Board to give ranchers and the cattle industry preference in lease auctions, on the grounds that they add to the state’s economy and therefore help schools in the long run.

From 1993 to 1995, WWP repeatedly outbid ranchers in the auctions, but was never awarded a lease.

The legislature’s 1995 "Anti-Marvel" law eliminated WWP from participating in the lease-bidding process.

However, the state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the 1995 law was unconstitutional on the grounds that the state constitution directs School Endowment Fund lands to be managed solely for the benefit of Idaho’s schools, rather than for Idaho’s economy as a whole.

Who do you think dragged the State Land Board and Legislature into court, and all the way to the Supreme Court for the benefit of hunters, fishermen, and, most importantly, the Schoolchildren? And, how much did these "serial litigators" recieve from the Equal Access act? (Hint: The answer is zero).



Perhaps I am getting your crusade confused?

• Are you against lawsuits?
• Are you against the funding of prevailing parties that have standing under the EAJA?
• Are you against environmental organizations?

(and, not sure what "viscous" was describing in your post.)

 

[Southwind]

You do realise that these groups don't have a "profit model" other than your strawman? And, as a CPA, do you really think "profit" is equal to the amount above the attorney's wage rate? I have never seen a professional services firm that doesn't have overhead from an accounting standpoint

Kind of like the Clinton Foundation huh Jose?

 

[JoseCuervo]

You can accurately state he is "full of it" in general.

Kind of like the Clinton Foundation huh Jose?

I have no idea who you are, nor do I really care who you are. But, I would suggest to Big Fin that if you can't add something to the discussion, your posts/account be deleted.

 

[Big Fin]

.......


You do realise that these groups

........

(and, not sure what "viscous" was describing in your post.)

Again, Pot (realise=realize), meet Kettle (viscous=vicious).


I am happy to have you chime in the way you have. What you have provided so far, as valid as some of it is and as irrelevant as some of it is, ignores what you and I both know - there is serious abuse of this law (EAJA) and that abuse is getting worse every year.

You can spend your entire days providing tangential topics and opinions that do not get to the issue of the obvious examples of abuse. Until you get to some serious discussion about that point, the point I raised in this original post, you are unlikely to change many minds. Your posts have not changed my mind, so far, only playing to confirm my impressions, based on past experience, that those most worried about change to EAJA, scream the loudest and ignore the topic of discussion - abuse of this rule and the impacts that abuse has.

Different than your method of debate, Ben provided some concrete examples of the Mountain State Legal Foundation entering a lawsuit that is equally as ridiculous and harmful to the collaborative process. In no way should they be provided any legal reimbursement under EAJA. You would probably agree with my opinion on that, as I suspect you have the same low regard for the motives of MSLF as I do. For me, I don't care what side of the argument the plaintiff is on. I don't want them getting any reimbursement under EAJA if they are a non-profit abusing the process as is so often the case. I suspect I'm not the lonely voice in the wilderness when it comes to average folks fed up with the abuse.

Ben has made some good points and provided me facts connected to the original post; that even though the majority of lawsuits filed are by Big Green, there are other sides happy to imbibe when possible/profitable. Something like that actually helps influence the view one might previously have had. By showing me that there is more going on than my original biases might have illustrated, I look at it from an expanded perspective. That is helpful to me.

Your ramblings and disconnected points, so far, no help at all.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Again, Pot (realise=realize), meet Kettle (viscous=vicious).


I am happy to have you chime in the way you have. What you have provided so far, as valid as some of it is and as irrelevant as some of it is, ignores what you and I both know - there is serious abuse of this law (EAJA) and that abuse is getting worse every year.

You can spend your entire days providing tangential topics and opinions that do not get to the issue of the obvious examples of abuse. Until you get to some serious discussion about that point, the point I raised in this original post, you are unlikely to change many minds. Your posts have not changed my mind, so far, only playing to confirm my impressions, based on past experience, that those most worried about change to EAJA, scream the loudest and ignore the topic of discussion - abuse of this rule and the impacts that abuse has.

Different than your method of debate, Ben provided some concrete examples of the Mountain State Legal Foundation entering a lawsuit that is equally as ridiculous and harmful to the collaborative process. In no way should they be provided any legal reimbursement under EAJA. You would probably agree with my opinion on that, as I suspect you have the same low regard for the motives of MSLF as I do. For me, I don't care what side of the argument the plaintiff is on. I don't want them getting any reimbursement under EAJA if they are a non-profit abusing the process as is so often the case. I suspect I'm not the lonely voice in the wilderness when it comes to average folks fed up with the abuse.

Ben has made some good points and provided me facts connected to the original post; that even though the majority of lawsuits filed are by Big Green, there are other sides happy to imbibe when possible/profitable. Something like that actually helps influence the view one might previously have had. By showing me that there is more going on than my original biases might have illustrated, I look at it from an expanded perspective. That is helpful to me.

Your ramblings and disconnected points, so far, no help at all.

Yes, ramblings and disconnected points....

Gotcha.



For the at home audience following along, here is the original discussion and logic behind the EAJA when it was being inacted.

The Act’s legislative history provides a well-articulated explanation of
this objective:

The bill rests on the premise that a party who chooses to litigate an issue against the Government is not only representing his or her own vested interest but is also refining
and formulating public policy. An adjudication or civil action provides a concrete, adversarial test of Government regulation and thereby insures the legitimacy and fairness of the law. An adjudication, for example, may show that the policy or factual foundation underlying an agency rule is erroneous or inaccurate, or it may provide a vehicle for developing or announcing more precise rules. The bill thus recognizes that the expense of correcting error on the part of the Government should not rest wholly on the party whose willingness to litigate or adjudicate has helped to define the limits of Federal authority. Where parties are serving a public purpose, it is unfair to ask them to finance through their tax dollars unreasonable Government action and also bear the costs of vindicating their rights

Again, are you against environmental lawsuits or are you just against EAJA being used by non-profits?

 

[Big Fin]

Again, are you against environmental lawsuits or are you just against EAJA being used by non-profits?

I have no problem with environmental lawsuits. If they want to fund it with their own money, knock yourself out. I am tired of the no-risk scenario the EAJA and the liberal expansion of reimbursement that judges have recently afforded under that law.

And I don't care if the non-profit plaintiff asking for reimbursement under EAJA is an environmental groups, hunting groups, gun groups, trade industry groups, a church, a (insert cause here)........, I feel the same way. If the topic is so important to the members of the non-profit, then they should pay for the litigation and take the financial risk if they do not prevail.

 

[JoseCuervo]

And, to address the "method of debate" topic, how is your misleading strawman of

And once again, if they prevail on one small item, even a technicality where one of the many complex Federal statutes is in conflict with another Federal statute, they will get reimbursed for attorney fees at far higher rates than they pay their attorneys, creating a nice profit for their bottom line.

Vs. a much different standard in reality...

EAJA allows federal courts and agencies to make an award of “fees and other expenses” to parties who have prevailed in court or in adversarial administrative proceedings against the federal government, unless the position of the United States “was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust.” The statute defines “fees and other expenses” to include “reasonable attorney or agent fees.”

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have no problem with environmental lawsuits. If they want to fund it with their own money, knock yourself out. I am tired of the no-risk scenario the EAJA and the liberal expansion of reimbursement that judges have recently afforded under that law.

And I don't care if the non-profit plaintiff asking for reimbursement under EAJA is an environmental groups, hunting groups, gun groups, trade industry groups, a church, a (insert cause here)........, I feel the same way. If the topic is so important to the members of the non-profit, then they should pay for the litigation and take the financial risk if they do not prevail.

Should they also take the "financial risk" if they do prevail??

Kind of a "heads I lose, tails you win" proposition for the groups fighting for My Public Lands?

 

[Nemont]

Jose,

I think Jon Marvel has finally got the full mind meld with you that he has been attempting for a long time. His group is a serial litigant who litigates first and sorts out the issues second or third. I wonder how much justice has been paid to the lawyers of that group.

If you don't believe that the green movement abuses the EAJA then I have some ocean front property right in Sun Valley next to Marvel's place to sell you.


Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose,

I think Jon Marvel has finally got the full mind meld with you that he has been attempting for a long time. His group is a serial litigant who litigates first and sorts out the issues second or third. I wonder how much justice has been paid to the lawyers of that group.

If you don't believe that the green movement abuses the EAJA then I have some ocean front property right in Sun Valley next to Marvel's place to sell you.


Nemont

Jon is long gone from WWP, and, for the record, I have never given a single dollar to WWP.

But, I am always on the lookout for good ocean front property, so I am interested in any you are liquidating.

(By the way, hope all is good with you and the family.)

 

[Southwind]

I have no idea who you are, nor do I really care who you are. But, I would suggest to Big Fin that if you can't add something to the discussion, your posts/account be deleted.

Oh you care, your sociopathic serial lying nature won't allow for anything less. If Randy wants to delete then so be it.

 

[Big Fin]

Keep it on track guys. The personal comments serve no value.

 

[Oneye]

What's really disheartening is I believe the federal plans are pretty adequate and fair. Utah just recently decided to sue because they don't want to even abide by the current federal plans, now we've got environmental groups going to sue to make money and impose heavier handed regulations that will only fuel the transfer/sale of our public lands. So while we work hard to stop the transfer and sale of our lands these back door litigators are making stories that fuel the fire. Why can't environmental, conservation. And hunting and angling groups stand together and defend keeping public lands public and work on managment without taking advantage of a system intended for good? It's sad that lawsuits follow every decision made anymore.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have no problem with environmental lawsuits. If they want to fund it with their own money, knock yourself out. I am tired of the no-risk scenario the EAJA and the liberal expansion of reimbursement that judges have recently afforded under that law.

.

Can you explain the "no-risk scenario" that you are tired of? I have never met an attorney headed into court that enjoyed a "no-risk scenario", that is why people always try to settle prior to court proceedings.

And, for the record, if the parties settle before the court on one of these lawsuits you object to, there is ZERO recovery under EAJA. The hurdles for collecting under EAJA are fairly high. You have to prevail on significant items, then,you have to petition the court for fees.

Both of those tasks have substantial risk. And there are plenty of court precedents where the plaintiffs prevailed, but were denied reimbursement of funds. See: Hill v. Gould wherein the government lost, but the judge ruled that though the government had violated the law, and despite the “thinness of the agency record,” the court found that the government’s position was substantially justified.

That is a lot of risk, hardly a "no-risk scenario".

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's really disheartening is I believe the federal plans are pretty adequate and fair. Utah just recently decided to sue because they don't want to even abide by the current federal plans, now we've got environmental groups going to sue to make money and impose heavier handed regulations that will only fuel the transfer/sale of our public lands. So while we work hard to stop the transfer and sale of our lands these back door litigators are making stories that fuel the fire. Why can't environmental, conservation. And hunting and angling groups stand together and defend keeping public lands public and work on managment without taking advantage of a system intended for good? It's sad that lawsuits follow every decision made anymore.

There's a lot of great wisdom in this post. And only one spelling mistake.

There is value, too, with having the flag planted far on the left, and far on the right to bring people together. A coalition of NGO's works on the sage grouse issue which fits the bolded part of your post. This happens quite a lot, actually. For example - the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act was a coalition of ranchers, farmers, hunters, business owners, non-profits and environmentalists who put aside some differences and sat down to hammer out a compromise that everyone could live with.

it took 10 years to get there.

On sage grouse, many of those same groups worked together to find common ground on the BLM plans, submitting comments closely tied to each other, and supporting the end decision when it came out, even though many of them would have liked to see things differently around the margins. On this lawsuit, I do think that it gets a little misrepresented in what the groups who are suing are seeking to achieve, even if I don't agree with their need to sue on the issue. I do think that they are seeking stronger plans for the protection of sage grouse. They are not seeking to up-end implementation nor do they want to reverse the decision - just strengthen the plans.

During our last legislative session in MT, the environmental community lent support to restoring our access funding and pushing forward on the FWP licensing bill because they understood that better funding for the agency meant better wildlife conservation in general.

The out-liers actually push groups together, even though they end up at odds over certain issues (Grizzly bears being a big issue coming up) but largely, groups are working better together today than they were 20 years ago.

On litigants receiving funding for losing the case under EAJA, I haven't heard of this, but don't distrust Randy's word. I'm trying to find some info on that, if anyone has any. It's long been my understanding that only successful litigants can seek funding through the Justice Fund or EAJA payments.

 

[MTGomer]

Its all about the 'Donate Now' button.
These groups don't care about wildlife one bit.
They make emotional pleas to ignorant city dwellers that think they like animals and wilderness, but couldn't identify a sage grouse from a domestic turkey, and receive a fat pay day.
Anybody ever look at the comp package when a group like these hires? Six figures, paid travel, every expense imaginable paid, a month of vaca, retirement, etc.. etc...
Its all a big racket to pad the pockets of those disconnected from the wilds the most, while they stick their noses in the air at us po, unedumacated, rednek cuntry foke, pad eachother on the back, twit some self-righteous tweet about the good they've done for some imperiled bird in Montucky, top it all off with the latest trending earth warrior hashtag, and cut a check to their litigious staff, half of whom are on extended vacation in the far east, dining on the caviar of endangered fish species.

But in all seriousness, sue and settle is a tried and true tactic. Its a guaranteed revenue stream. It won't change, until the law changes.

 

[noharleyyet]

I despise all lawyers except mine.



Fin, you do realise this is an accepted spelling.

 

[1_pointer]

And, for the record, if the parties settle before the court on one of these lawsuits you object to, there is ZERO recovery under EAJA. The hurdles for collecting under EAJA are fairly high. You have to prevail on significant items, then,you have to petition the court for fees.

I know that appellants have received compensation when a settlement is reached prior to a hearing. I do not know if that was due to an EAJA filing or as just part of the settlement negotiations.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I know that appellants have received compensation when a settlement is reached prior to a hearing. I do not know if that was due to an EAJA filing or as just part of the settlement negotiations.

If you are thinking about the El Paso O&G pipeline, I don't believe that had anything to do with EAJA, was just part of the settlement.

 

[1_pointer]

If you are thinking about the El Paso O&G pipeline, I don't believe that had anything to do with EAJA, was just part of the settlement.

Nope, not that one.