Barbara Martin,
Posted on 04/16/2002 10:56:45 PM PDT by Issaquahking
I just received a letter from the Klamath Bucket Brigade thanking us for our support.
They say; "To date, we have still not received word on how much water we will receive
for the 2002 irrigation season."............"Despite
the good news that we have been getting over the last few
weeks, the war has not been won yet. Our farmers and
ranchers will need to continue to fight for their water rights
against the environmentalists who will continue to try to
deny us our right to make a living for our families and
put food on your table."
Barbara Martin,
Molon Labe !!
The "reasonable time, place and manner" language comes from an old (1940s?) Supreme Court case that held that the First Amendment didn't protect a street preacher's right to use a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 2:00 AM.
Barbara will never go away. She, many of her friends and associates, and her attorney cannot be bought off. She's put a lot of time, effort, blood, sweat and tears into this cause. She is highly motivated, extremely ethical, thorough in her research and claims. She has done more for finding out the truth in this basin than any one else. She is straight forward and relentless in the pursuit of truth and what's right. Superwoman? Yeppers, that's her!
The Feds and many other elected officials would like to see her go away...but..guess what...folks, she's here to stay...with many, many behind her...including myself. Thanks Rocky for posting this. The feds have been caught with their pants down AGAIN.
I was merely suggesting that the government may have agreed to pay Barbara Martin an undisclosed amount of money in order to settle this matter since it was obvious that if the government took this case to trial, it would get hammered. Taking money to settle a lawsuit is in no way compromising ones integrity. After all, in most cases there is no other means to make a 'victim' whole. As a bare minimum, I suspect the government paid for her legal expenses, including attorney fees. More likely, she will also be able to put an undisclosed amount of money in her pocket; the more the better as far as I'm concerned.
While the government hasn't admitted liability to Barbara's counter-claim, the fact that they settled this case is a very clear indication the government was in big trouble and they knew it. The fact that Barbara agreed to a dismissal with prejudice is an indication that there was some sort of payment made by the government in order for Barbara to 'go away', at least as it relates to this particular action. I certainly did not mean to imply that she will no longer be active in the cause of the Klamath Falls farmers, and if you thought I did, your were making assumptions that are not supported by my comment.
I did't say she did as for her efforts to help the Klamath Basin farmers.
She paid all of her attorney's fees, trip fees.
I have no reason to think her attorney did not get paid nor the expenses covered.
I understand that the Feds slapped her with a gag order so that she couldn't discuss the case with anyone.
This would be unconstitutional, unless Barbara agreed to it and it is unlikely she would have done so without receiving some amount of financial consideration from the government that required her to not discuss the case. What she has is not a 'gag order', but a non-disclosure agreement. A non-disclosure agreement without compensation would be nothing. There must be some motivation for Barbara to agree to a non-disclosure clause, the that motivation would most likely be in the form of money.
I've asked her to post responses to this thread. Hopefully, she'll have time.
There is likely not much she can say since the settlement appears to include a non-disclosure clause.
You seem to be a bit defensive about the possibility that Barbara may have received money from the government as part of a settlement, as if the acceptance of money for this blatant abuse of someones constitutional rights is somehow immoral. Quite the contrary, the more money paid to her, the more it indicates just how blatantly her rights were violated.
Not that I have been following her case as closely as many, but when the federal judge told them to go back to mediation of the dispute, he was signaling to the government that they had best settle with Barbara or it would get real ugly in court. Basically, the judge was sending a signal to the government that Barbara would prevail on her counter-claims on summary judgment. The government apparently got the hint and then simply negotiated the best deal with Barbara's attorney that they could.
Don't bother asking Barbara about my analysis since she is most likely unable to comment on it without violating a non-disclosure clause.
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.