Posted on 09/04/2001 11:31:59 PM PDT by Bump in the night
I know a lot of us are doing a lot of research regarding Klamath Falls. So I'm starting this thread for posting any research data that we think is applicable to the crisis in Klamath Falls. I know there are bits and pieces all over FR and the various Klamath threads. But this will help get all the important info into one location.
I am still bothered by the fact that the ESA has expired, 1992, but is still being funded.
Goddess50: thought you might like to know this was here and available. ^5
Are non-profits allowed to have an influence on public policy decisions--legislative, administrative, legal, and electoral? Does this violate their non-profit status?
Justice Kennedy , with whom Justice Souter joins, I agree with the Court's conclusion in Part III A that, on the record before us, respondents have failed to demonstrate that they themselves are "among the injured." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735 (1972). This component of the standing inquiry is not satisfied unless
"[p]laintiffs . . . demonstrate a `personal stake in the outcome.' . . . Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must show that he `has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury' as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both `real and immediate,' not `conjectural' or `hypothetical.' " Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (citations omitted). ...more at link
OHIO FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SIERRA CLUB et al.
(b) The Court cannot consider the Sierra Club’s argument that the Plan will hurt it immediately in many ways not yet mentioned. That argument makes its first appearance in this Court in the briefs on the merits and is, therefore, not fairly presented. Pp. 11—12.
Committee on Resources, THE ROLE OF FEDERAL COURTS OVER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
... However, while those seeking stricter enforcement of the ESA, such as environmental groups have been given significant litigation rights, those whose economic and civil rights are impacted by actions taken by the Secretary or the courts have had their access to the courts severely restricted. In Bennett v. Plenert, 63 F. 3rd 915, decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on August 1995, the court held that a group of plaintiffs who had suffered economic damages as a result of the ESA, had no standing to challenge the actions of the Secretary. The plaintiffs were two Oregon ranch operators and 2 irrigation districts located in Oregon. They were challenging the government's preparation of a biological opinion which concluded that the water level in two reservoirs should be maintained at a particular minimum level in order to preserve two species of fish that were listed under the ESA. The plaintiffs were users of the water for both commercial and recreational purposes. The plaintiffs asserted that there was no evidence to support the biological opinion and that the Secretary failed to comply with procedures required by the ESA.
Attorneys representing Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, filed a motion to have the plaintiff's case dismissed on the ground that they lacked "standing to sue". The Court agreed with the Fish and Wildlife Service and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding that the plaintiffs' interest in utilizing the water "conflicts with the Lost River and shortnose suckers' interest in using water for habitat". The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were premised on "an interest which conflicts with the interests sought to be protected by the Act."
Inside The Hidden Empire --
Part Two
By Charles A. Bedell
Trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute
1997
In "The Hidden Empire -- Part One" published in the September, 1996, edition of The Address, we began to explore the nature of the environmental advocacy industry and its impact on America's individual rights. We discussed the history of a type of lawsuit called the "citizen suit" which was created by friends of the environmental advocacy industry in Congress and inserted in our federal environmental laws.
We also noted that evidence seems to be coming to light that this type of lawsuit has been widely used by the environmental advocacy industry to line their pockets rather than as Congress intended.
The case of Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Company has provided us with a shocking insight into what appears to be the dark side of the environmental movement. The Sierra Club's action against little Cedar Point Oil was the only one of several threatened suits which ever made it into court. The Sierra Club approached an unknown number of other oil companies with activities in Galveston Bay, Texas, and, incredibly, offered to let them continue to discharge produced water for 24 months if the companies would pay the Sierra Club a fee and also pay their related legal expenses. If the discharge didn't stop within the stipulated 24 months, the oil companies would have to pay the Sierra Club or their designee a certain sum per month!
Interesting if true, the Sierra Club is just like Jesse Jackson, blackmail them until your rich.
A brief summary of a reading of the above doocumments posted by me by Alamo-Girl.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) effectively bypasses the normal authority of the Executive and Legislative branches of federal government. It does this by allowing law to be made by the courts with reimbursements made to trial attorneys by the government. Of course, judicial rulings vary in different parts of the country, so the law has not been consistently developed or enforced.
Notably, in Bennet v. Plenert 63 F. 3rd 915 - which was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in August of 1995 – the court made it very clear that the law itself does not protect other parties, such as irrigators. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because of the “zone of interest” test. The plaintiff had to be within the zone of interest intended by Congress to be protected by the law. And the ESA is limited to protecting only plaintiffs who allege an interest in the preservation of an endangered species.
It therefore seems that a successful cause of action against environmentalists would have to be under some other provision of the law – something like “fraud” for junk science or “interference with contracts” for irrigators, and so on. The successful plaintiff must show actual damages, so it appears the best lawsuit opportunity would follow a damaging green decision previously determined under the under the ESA. Klamath is a good case where actual damages can be shown.
I don't have a clue whether it is constitutional, but it sure strikes me as a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party (i.e. we the people.)
By redefining Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, all globlists/environmentalists now have to do is ratify international treaties that subvert the Constitution and throw all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and species have more legal rights than Americans.
Plaintiff has to be in the "zone of interest" - does this mean that a plaintiff would have to be an endangered species, experiencing harm to a different endangered species, or complaining of a conflict within ESA - such as complaining that the action taken to aid sucker fish was damaging bald eagles.
If this is what is meant - I see problems with that because that would mean citizens had no redress unless it involved another aspect of ESA. Therefore ESA rules and is unchallengable. Surely the court did not mean that.
If this is the case - I would think IMHO - that this is totally unconstitutional because you have in effect set one organization or Act above all others with no redress. On top of that - this Act is expired and is only in effect because they keep on funding it and the courts "act" as if it is in effect.
So, I see real problems for the ESA here:
Remember - I am not a student of constitutional law or any law - ignore if this is totally false.
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.