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.