Posted on 12/30/2004 5:10:03 PM PST by BenLurkin
FAWNSKIN, Calif. (AP) The Department of Justice will provide attorneys for three U.S. Forest Service employees sued by a developer under a law originally passed to fight drug lords and the mafia.
San Diego developer Irving Okovita sued the employees and an environmentalist in November, accusing them of conspiring to block a luxury condominium project in Big Bear Lake that he wants to build with an Arizona company.
He filed the legal action under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as the RICO Act, created in 1970 to fight organized crime.
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sullivan to represent the three, Matt Mathes, a spokesman for U.S. Forest Service, said Thursday.
The workers and their advocates said Okovita was misusing the law to retaliate after a judge temporarily blocked the Marina Point project in May.
Saying the suit is intended to harass government workers, they hailed the government decision to provide attorneys. The move came after several weeks of uncertainty about whether the Department of Justice would get involved.
A call to the agency by The Associated Press was not immediately returned.
``The thought of having to pay for private representation was weighing heavily,'' said defendant Gene Zimmerman, supervisor of San Bernardino National Forest. ``As a federal employee, I have limited resources to put into weighty litigation.''
Okovita is also suing Robin Eliason and her husband, Scott Eliason, both of whom are Forest Service biologists, as well as Sandy Steers, a former scientist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, who has helped lead opposition to the development.
Okovita's attorney, S. Wayne Rosenbaum said he was surprised that the Justice Department decided to intervene because the Forest Service is conducting an internal investigation. Agency officials said they could not comment on the probe.
However, Mathes said, ``These three employees are held in very high regard for their work.''
The project calls for 132 condo units, a marina and tennis courts. Developers plan to raze more than 300 pine trees that provide winter shelter to the bald eagle, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Okovita alleges that the Eliasons provided false information to government agencies to halt the development and to help the Forest Service acquire the land cheaply while also boosting the value of their own nearby property.
The Department of Justice provides lawyers for federal workers in most cases in which they are sued but initially delayed a decision over whether to represent the three, raising concerns for the workers.
This is racketeering at its finest. The enviro-weenies strike again, but maybe RICO could stop them. Hmmm.
California property rights ping!
Wow!
If he had any cojones he'd be suing the government, not the employees.
I would imagine this happened because the developer's lawyer neglected to research the matter to discover that the government generally will provide legal counsel to it's employees (or witnesses or contractors) who are sued by third parties in such cases.
This happens. I've been hit with bluebacked paper right at my desk which I simply forwarded up through channels to counsel. Never thought about it again. There is, of course, a never-ending supply of stupid lawyers who will keep trying this trick in the hope that a federal judge can be tricked.
Most government bureaucrats are pricks who see the public as impinging on their comfort. They will use capricious reasoning to block any reasonable development effort. Equal parts nimbyism and laziness. Property rights and tradition don't even enter the mix.
I'll guarantee you that if government employees were subject to being dragged into court at their own expense by upset citizens nobody would take the jobs.
The builder was initially upset when his plan was rejected by the Board with the recommendation that he come back with something real.
Rent on a garden apartment wouldn't have paid the taxes on the land.
BS. It's not the government's place to decide the economic viability of projects, nor any other buttinskis, either. I'm in the process of getting a simple task taken care of now -- something harmless that would have been rubberstamped 10 years ago. Bureaucrats have so much momentum that routine stuff is like pulling teeth.
My brother recently had a house built on a regular city lot with no issues or plan corrections. Explain to him his 6 month wait and a $12,000 building permit. It's obscene how much we power we have given these turds.
As a member of the public, what price do you think I ought to place on your running pipe and wire through my property?
You can, of course, find perfectly usable building sites that have no public access at all.
Friend of my father's bought such a "landlocked" site years ago. He used to go down in the country and climb a nearby hill on public land to look over at it from time to time.
The other landowners refused to grant him an easement to access his lot.
At some point most of us simply do not have the resources to afford our own self-sufficient island and have to put up with the neighbors. That $12,000 fee is cheap by standards elsewhere.
"I'll guarantee you that if government employees were subject to being dragged into court at their own expense by upset citizens nobody would take the jobs."
Excellent! I like that thought. Less parasites to feed.
Yeah, parasites ~ man your own prisons buddy.
Lynx Hair Biologists
Gotcha! You're a government employee aren't you. Come on now, admit it.
BTW, nothing I enjoy more than collecting bills from people who owe money to the government. It's better than riding motorcycles or flying jet fighters, even in combat.
That didn't include any hook up fees. Those were extra. All it did was pay for planning leeches at city hall. He had the option of paying a $1,500 to private reviewers in order to expedite. That kinda shows you the real cost.
If Americans want to price their kids out of single family homes, make a lot of unneccessary hurdles. There are bureaucratic critters eager to help. Our parents managed just fine without 6 month of plan review (translation: sitting in a stack). Somehow, everyone feels the need to micro-manage the activities of their neighbors with heavy-handed and expensive cockroaches at city hall. It's almost to the point where I cheer someone going postal.
Plus water retention accommodations, another $50,000 or so.
Ronald Reagan was a great believer in user fees ~ that's the idea that those who want to make use of a government service should pay for it.
Planning and Zoning, although usually not thought of by someone who wants to build or develop as being necessarily good ideas, really do serve to keep the highrise pigfarms out of residential areas.
Rotterdam, Nederland, in fact, recently faced the prospect of someone want to build a 30 story pigfarm, all properly vented, of course, adjacent to a residential area.
$12,000 is less than the price of an Hyundai Elantra, just about the least expensive small car you can get that can seat 5 adults! No doubt the house being built on the lot is going to be worth $100,000 or more when it's done. I would certainly hope I was getting the best talent money can buy in the town's planning office because they're going to be the guys who defend that new house on that lot against other folks in the area who want to do things your brother might think should be farther away!
Most of us can't afford to live in your neighborhood. Maybe you can write us all nice checks to make us feel better about it though.
There's way too much development in California and way too many people as it is.
Wouldn't bother me if they prohibited the chopping down of even a single California tree again.
I ain't in a charatable mood.
I take it that you live in CA?
No way.
Much too crowded.
Ah. Now your post makes sense. ;)
There was planning and zoning back in the days of small permit fees and one day turnaround for review. Don't give me that malarkey. I built many safe, modern homes that people still habitate successfully. What has changed are the mountainous number of hurdles needed to plat and develop land.
Charge people for the cost of water and other public services including schools. But $100,000 in any locale is government-gone-insane. Between planners, biologists, and lawyers, people have to work at least an extra year in order to pay for the permit that puts zero extra value into a home.
The project calls for 132 condo units, a marina and tennis courts. Developers plan to raze more than 300 pine trees that provide winter shelter to the bald eagle, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
From what I've read, that is an assertion by the Eliasons that has since been disproven.
If he had any cojones he'd be suing the government, not the employees.
From what I know of this case, they deserve it, richly. This guy did everything imagineable and then some to produce a product that would enhance environmental quality, including habitat restoration projects on property he otherwise could have developed. IIRC, he's been held up for nearly sixteen years.
I would imagine this happened because the developer's lawyer neglected to research the matter to discover that the government generally will provide legal counsel to it's employees (or witnesses or contractors) who are sued by third parties in such cases.
Building your case upon imaginings? That's pretty desperate and, in this case, dead wrong.
There is, of course, a never-ending supply of stupid lawyers who will keep trying this trick in the hope that a federal judge can be tricked.
BS, again. Most lawyers and developers know better than to take on a bureaucracy with virtually infinite funding, but this guy is at the end of his rope.
Regulatory takings with corruption involved are becoming extremely common. It's high time RICO was employed, as I recommended over five years ago. I know of one recent instance where an agency redrew an owner's property, taking about a third of it and he couldn't even bring the case because the surveyors wouldn't touch the job. The power the Open Space District wields is too great. That was in the SF Bay Area so you know how much money was involved.
Nope, from what I know of this the Eliasons should swing, not that I want to see more condos on Big Bear Lake either.
You are full of crap and clearly incapable of Reason. There are so many overstocked forests in California about to blow sky high that the forest management infrastructure can't begin to keep up with the rate of growth. Where I live the rate of growth exceeds harvesting by a factor of five even on managed lands. In the aggregate, less than 0.5% of the volume gets harvested annually while volume accrues 3% annually.
When the San Bernardino Fire blew a couple of years ago there were places with 2,000 trees per acre where the pre-Columbian stocking levels were 15-45 trees per acre.
You should try the hard work of restoring land before flapping your jaws about National Forest policy, much less tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their land.
That would be bad because???
BTT!!!!!
They are going to be represented in court at the cost of the taxpaying public anyway.
Then, some folks wonder why permits cost so much these days ~
Water and schools, of course, should be PRIVATE SERVICES!
God these threads suck. What happened to reasoned opinion?
The US government isn't bound to defend criminal activity, which of which the Eliasons are accused. If all you are bitching about is that the taxpayers are footing the bill, then bitch about the bureaucrat who signed the requisition for Eliason's attorney.
When the San Bernardino Fire blew a couple of years ago there were places with 2,000 trees per acre where the pre-Columbian stocking levels were 15-45 trees per acre.
You should try the hard work of restoring land before flapping your jaws about National Forest policy, much less tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their land
If there weren't so many people in California, you could afford to let the forests manage itself: It wouldn't matter if millions of acres of forests naturally burned down, because there would still be so much left. It would just be nature following a natural cycle.
Nature is able to take care of itself--as it demonstrated for billions of years before man set foot on North America.
This is horse feces too. Since the last ice age, forests have never operated in North America without massive human intervention. You should read America's Ancient Forests, from the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery by Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen, a forest archaeologist.
You don't go backwards in nature. We have suppressed fires for a hundred years. Meadows have been lost. Chaparral and broadleaf stands destroyed. Most influential is that the rate of growth has been accelerated by carbon dioxide.
Forests will never again operate as they had.
Worse, the importation of exotic weeds will take over many of those forests after a fire. You have only to go to Montana to see the knapweed stands where forests once stood to see it, with 135% faster erosion to boot.
Your "leave it to nature" preference would be disastrous to forests.
Nature is able to take care of itself--as it demonstrated for billions of years before man set foot on North America.
As if nature and humans were necessarily separate. This is just goofy and uneducated misanthropy.
They're only weeds if you want them to be. Otherwise they're just different plants.
You can come down on both sides of the argument.
Besides, that which might be claimed to be "criminal" by an agrieved person's counsel may well be a "legal requirement", or merely something considered customary.
The government is bound to provide counsel to the government's own employees unless and until the deed is found by appropriate authority to be a crime. And your immediate supervisor is usually not such an authority (although some here have literally argued for providing higher level government bureaucrats with extraordinary judicial powers so they could find their subordinates guilty of crimes even without a trial).
BTW, if they'd developed the Santa Monica's and left the orange groves intact, California would appear to be much more open, social services could be provided to the present population living on a smaller area, and everybody would be much happier.
Was it something the developer submitted in support of his proposal?
Thank you for proving your ignorance.
False. What we have here is fraud under the color of authority.
Besides, that which might be claimed to be "criminal" by an agrieved person's counsel may well be a "legal requirement", or merely something considered customary.
Fraud for profit using government power is criminal, no matter which way one looks at it. That the plaintiff couldn't find a government attorney to bring the case necessitates this approach.
government is bound to provide counsel to the government's own employees unless and until the deed is found by appropriate authority to be a crime.
So, if a government employee embezzles funds the government is bound to fund their defense? BS. The US attorney could easily have issued a finding that the case is criminal.
We all know who you worked for 30 years.
OK, smart person, please give me a definition for "weed" that's applicable to one species in all places for all time.
How about 38 years!
There. That's much better.
Would appear you weren't able to convince a US Attorney there was much substance in your accusations. It's no wonder. And regarding "embezzlement", it's still not a slam dunk even when you find a USPS window clerk slipping money out of his cashdrawer. There are procedures to be followed, and the clerks' rights have to be protected. Of course those folks are all represented by a union, but the culture of USPS doesn't allow for anyone but a top level manager getting away with theft without prosecution.
You also have to allow for the thought that the employee against whom charges are brought might win, and then what? It happens! Do you know what that costs to rectify? There's much more involved than back pay.
I'd like to see you provide iron-clad information that the folks you are accusing of misusing their positions actually made a profit and have the money jingling in their pockets. BTW, don't go arguing that "well the value of their own property increased" because we don't know that until the property goes on the market. For all we know, absent that other development (which would bring in a better grocery store and a Gucci outlet) their property values might have declined. Then, again, there's been this big drought in the West for the last 5 years, and who knows what causes what to happen.
Regarding the information that should have been confidential, please post a copy of it here so we can all have a chance at evaluating it.
http://www.r-calfusa.com/survey.htm
U.S. Forest Service Employees, Other Conspirators Sued by Marina Point Development
Associates under Federal Anti-Racketeering Act
11.08.04, 12:22 PM ET
Group Accused of Abusing "the Color of Their Authority and the Cloak of Their Office for
Their own Personal Benefit"
Three federal employees have been accused of abusing their government offices and authority
to create a complex conspiracy aimed at scuttling a Big Bear Lake development in which they
had undisclosed personal interests, according to a lawsuit filed Nov. 3 in U.S. District Court,
Central District, Western Division.
Gene Zimmerman, Scott Eliason and Robin Eliason -- all employees of the U.S. Forest
Service -- are named as co-conspirators in the lawsuit brought by Marina Point Development
Associates, the landowner of a 12.5-acre development site and marina on the north shore of
Big Bear Lake. The lawsuit alleges the three -- along with one other principal member of a
purported environmental group called "Friends of Fawnskin" and a number of "John Does" to
provide for additional people to be named as more evidence is gathered -- defrauded Marina
Point Development in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act by attempting to illegally stop the project that was under construction in order to advance
their private interests.
"The defendants in this case, employees of the U.S. Forest Service, knowingly and willfully
abused the color of their authority and the cloak of their office for their own personal benefit,"
said S. Wayne Rosenbaum of the law firm Foley & Lardner, attorney for Marina Point
Development Associates. "They issued false information about the project to other
government agencies. They misrepresented their personal opposition as official U.S. Forest
Service positions, plotted and conspired with other people who had a financial interest in the
project's demise, improperly shared government information that was not public, and withheld
information that my client was entitled to have under the Freedom of Information Act. On top
of these illegal acts, the defendants then attempted to destroy evidence on their
government-issued computers. If government employees are somehow exempt from the
criminal behavior that the government itself is charged with prosecuting, then we should all be
very afraid."
The lawsuit alleges that the three U.S. Forest Service employees, as well as one member of
the Friends of Fawnskin advisory committee, were active plotters in the strategy to
misrepresent information and confuse other government officials in order to stop the project,
and which could allow the U.S. Forest Service to then obtain the land in question below fair
market value. Rosenbaum said all those named in the lawsuit own property nearby the
development and self-interest, rather than a legitimate concern for the environment, is at the
heart of their opposition. Strategies the group allegedly discussed at meetings include an
attempt to cut off Marina Point's water supply through a shady land swap, according to
Rosenbaum.
"The group was willing to support the U.S. Forest Service in giving 300 acres of public land in
exchange for the 68 acres that adjoins Marina Point Development which could, in turn, allow
U.S. Forest Service to cut off the water supply to my client and force him out," said
Rosenbaum. "Other corrupt strategies were continual misrepresentations and outright
falsehoods about the existence of endangered plants, bald eagle habitats and the like. Evidence
of these illegal activities can be found in the minutes of the Friends of Fawnskin meetings,
which were found on the computer where they were created -- the government computer
issued to Robin Eliason by the U.S. Forest Service."
The Marina Point project dates back to 1981, when a group of investors purchased the
property. At the time, it was the site of a deteriorated tavern, RV camp/campground, and
marina and was an environmental eyesore. After purchase, the landowners improved the
property and protected the shoreline and marina jetties. In 1982, they began processing their
project through governmental agencies for approval. The project included a 133-unit resort on
12.5 acres with many acres of landscaped open space, a restoration of the pre-existing
Fawnskin marina, and environmental improvements to the lake.
Approval of the project was complex due to the involvement of various governmental agencies
that had jurisdiction over the area, including the lake itself. After a comprehensive
environmental impact report was certified, the original project was finally approved in 1983. In
1989, when the project had to be re-approved due to a water moratorium, an U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 404 permit was acquired for the project's shoreline protection. During the
Army Corps of Engineers process, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service expressed concern about
nearby bald eagles, causing Marina Point Development Associates to redesign the project to
include a lagoon and bald eagle reserve. The same agency reversed itself in 1991 by
concluding the project had no adverse affect on the bald eagle and advised Marina Point to
revert to the original design, minus the four-star eagle lodging.
In December 1991, San Bernardino County approved the final project design after another
Environmental Impact Report was certified, and the necessary permits were secured from the
Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Board, the California
Department of Fish and Game and the Big Bear Municipal Water District. The government
agencies involved regularly extended the permits throughout the 90s, when the economic
recession caused delays in start-up.
In 1999, defendant Gene Zimmerman, supervisor of the local U.S. Forest Service office,
approached the Marina Point landowners and expressed U.S. Forest Service interest in
purchasing the property in order to keep it operating as a public RV park/campground and
marina. After a disputed federal appraisal placed the property's value at far less than fair
market value, the landowner ceased negotiations with the U.S. Forest Service and moved
forward with approval of the final map in order to begin construction of the resort. Around the
same time, said Rosenbaum, the Eliasons joined other owners of nearby properties who
formed the Friends of Fawnskin for the express purpose of stopping this and another proposed
development on the north shore of the lake. The Friends of Fawnskin began their campaign to
derail the project's ongoing construction, with the Eliasons illegally using the resources and
titles of their government office. Though Zimmerman may have only had indirect contact with
the organization, meeting minutes and other documents uncovered indicate he was aware of
his employees' illegal actions and he was "on board."
The conspiracy achieved success when the Army Corps of Engineers dragged its feet on
extending the existing 404 permit, something they had done four times previously and had
verbally agreed to do again. In this instance the agency cited U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish
& Wildlife concerns over environmental impact, including the bald eagle -- concerns that,
according to Rosenbaum and existing documents, had been resolved nearly a decade before
and every time permits were extended. The Army Corps of Engineers, however, went back on
their verbal agreement and eight months later enforced the expiration date. The group of
conspirators then used the lapsed permit to obtain an injunction that stopped construction.
The lawsuit alleges the sources of the information that re-ignited concern over the bald eagle
were Robin and Scott Eliason. Robin Eliason ignored the official U.S. Forest Service data that
she is charged with collecting and which shows the project is not in any critical habitat for the
bald eagle. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, she created and circulated a document of misleading
information, without disclosing her personal interest, her membership in the Friends of
Fawnskin or that these opinions contradicted actual U.S. Forest Service data. Scott Eliason
also sent misleading e-mail and other communications to Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service employees concerning endangered plants and animals at the project
site.
"Scott Eliason had been employed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife office for many years prior to
joining the U.S. Forest Service and had worked closely with Army Corps of Engineers
employees on environmental issues at Big Bear Lake. He knew his communications would
carry great weight with these agencies. However, he also never disclosed to these employees
his personal interests, his membership in the Friends of Fawnskin or the fact that his concerns
did not represent the official position of the U.S. Forest Service," said Rosenbaum.
"Marina Point Development Associates has followed all of the rules since its acquisition of the
property and should be moving forward on a project that will not only provide economic and
environmental benefit to the community, but will actually enhance aquatic and bald eagle
habitat," said Rosenbaum. "Instead, Marina Point has been the victim of a conspiracy, by the
very government employees who make and are supposed to enforce the rules. We knew that
there were outside forces working against us, but we were unable to prove it until the Friends
of Fawnskin sued us in state and federal court. Once we were finally able to get the
documents we had sought under the Freedom of Information Act, we found clear evidence of
the conspiracy we thought existed, but had not been able to prove, even though the various
players claimed that the information could not be found or, in some instances, tried to destroy
it. We've only received a fraction of the documents that we are entitled, and already we have
enough evidence for a RICO action against these four individuals. When we get all of the
information the law calls for, it is possible that others will also be held criminally liable."
Visit http://www.nstpr.com/press_kit/marina_point.html for more information.
Why can't we file another RICO suit against the people in the Justice Dept. to prevent them from defending these racketeers?
BTTT!!!!!!
Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in our own government!
And this would be a good thing for several reasons.
They would have to get a private job, starve, or become a criminal. Thus they become producers, remove their load from the system, or become identified for what they are, and subject to the control of honest citizens.
Cost of government goes down, economic opportunity goes up.
Obstructionists can no longer get paid royally to obstruct.
Those already in government jobs can be held accountable for the damage they have done.
Government tax revenues will increase, as conspiracies to steal private property will become a sure road to debtors prison, government stolen property will return to owners and the tax rolls.
Production from that property will increase the Federal tax base.
A large number of those government employees would become allies of the people because the government (in their mind) screwed them too.
Government size would shrink and it would accidentally become better government.
There would be no incentive to assist illegal aliens, as some citizen would take the shirt off your back for your participation in an ongoing criminal conspiracy involving insurrection.
All in all, removing legal protections for government workers (including civil service) is long overdue.
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.