Home Page Lawsuit Filed

Mark Rey, 14.09.2005 13:48

PEAC stands up for Home Page.

The Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center filed litigation this morning in Federal district court to protect the ancient forests at Home Page from the same Forest Service goons who have been logging old-growth reserves, wilderness areas, and botanical areas around the Biscuit Burn.

Home page contains 10 units of classic multi-story old growth forests with giant Douglas-fir, Incense Cedar and Ponderosa Pine trees that are older than this nation. These are the very types of green old growth sales that the Forest Service and timber industry claim to want to "create" in the Biscuit area by logging and creating plantations.

Potential bidder might want to request a copy of the complaint from the Forest Service, or PEAC, prior to bidding. The Forest Service might wish to examine the complaint before opening itself to potential breach of contract damanges by auctioning an illegal timber sale.

Or, more likely, both the timber industry and the Forest Service will continue breaking the laws and scratching each others backs while ignoring the law and the public.

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

Copy of Complaint 14.09.2005 - 17:01 You can find a copy of the Home Page old-growth legal complaint here:  http://law.lclark.edu/org/peac/forest.html Maybe this is the kick in the pants I need to finally seek help for my old-growth logging addiction... Scott Conroy> What? 15.09.2005 - 13:32 A frivilous lawsuit? Now there's a suprise. Gotta keep raking in that Equal Access to Justice money! Moon Muffin> Frivolous my foot 15.09.2005 - 13:38 Notice two local BLM timber sales, Timbered Rock and Silver Hawk, are included in PEAC's portfolio. Federal judges enjoined those illegal projects. This outfit is the real deal. M Hogan> Right. 15.09.2005 - 16:01 So you're saying that federal judges are never wrong? They are all-seeing, all-knowing? I'll have to remember that next time you bitch about not being handed the verdict that you want. Moon Muffin> PEAC 15.09.2005 - 18:12 So, PEAC files a plethora of lawsuites each year. The courts rule in favor of PEAC on a small fraction of the cases that they bring. On the cases that PEAC does "win," the judge usually finds in their favor on only on or two of the many issues that they brough up in their lawsuit. And when PEAC does win a case, we the taxpayers have to fork over the money to keep their attorneys wallets fat. Furthermore, PEAC is able to win as many lawsuits as they do only because of the fact that the FS and BLM are operating under such a f**cked up jumble of contradictory and vague laws. Anyways, my point is this ... Yes, PEAC files lots of frivilous lawsuits. Yes, the courts sometimes find in their favor on some of the issues that they bring up. That they are able to win on such technicalities doesn't necessarily give their lawsuits merrit. Litigant Fool> Level the field 16.09.2005 - 10:27 I still contend that the filer should have to post a 500K bond to file an environmental suit. If they lose they should pay for all legal cost including the court costs. Require this and see how many chicken shit suits the wackos are willing to file. At a minimum we would at least make on branch of government get out of the red. Chane Sau> Lawsuits 16.09.2005 - 11:43 Chane, You're on the right track. The way the law exists now, "environmental" litigants are entitled to huge payouts with taxpayer money if they win a case. They don't even need to win the whole case ... the judge just needs to rule in their favor on ONE of the issues they've brough before the court. On the other hand, they don't have to pay a dime if the loose a case. Because of this, it's in their interest to file as many lawsuits as they can and hope that they win a few of them. If filing these lawsuits weren't so profitable for them, perhaps they wouldn't be so eager to run to the courts with rediculous claims. Thinktivist> Money for nothin 16.09.2005 - 19:11 Now we are at the root of what this is all about. Big money. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT. Think, you were close but you actually don't even need to win to be able to charge New York lawyer fees to the Government. The judge can grant fees if you loose and he decides you have made a compelling arguement. Good work if you can get it, at a two or three hundred an hour. You don't need to know much more than the difference between litigant and litter box. The Forest Service may not have enough money for habitat restoration or planting but the ONRC's of the world always get paid first. Curious> Who Forgot Their Beat Down? 18.09.2005 - 16:48 What's this uppidity bullshit? It's like every citizen of this beautiful country of ours thinks they have access to the courts! What the hell? We should leave the courts to the corporations and the Armani suits of coporate America. Regular citizens shouldn't just be able to go to court and complain b/c a corporation isn't acting in accordance with the law. I make like $48K a year. Who am I to stand up to a CEO? If you ask me, these PEAC guys are a bit uppidity. They're not like the other mouthpiece of the corporation on this site--aka thinktivist, aka chain sau, aka curious, aka moon muffin--saying what they're told to say. If I have to be a servile non-complaining, corporate entity, then why shouldn't they? Silent Type P.S. Go PEAC! Go, go, go! Silent Type> e-mail:: silent_type_production@yahoo.com lawsuits and payoffs 18.09.2005 - 20:58 It'd be far better if there were just one branch of government. Then we wouldn't have to deal with frivolous lawsuits filed by the American Forest Resources Council, the industry front group led by Chris West. I wonder what AFRC lawyers charge the government when they settle frivolous lawsuits with the Bush administration - the O&C case, for example. There must have been a HUGE payoff for that illegal survey and manage settlement! Industry lawyers and Republican politicians milk this three-branch system far worse than non-profit public interest workers can dream of doing. Select a new myth for us to bust, please. Mark Rutzick> A New Record 19.09.2005 - 12:10 1) you're proposing a dictatorship? Saddam would love you. 2)Chris West does not run AFRC. 3)No EAJA dollars for S&M or O&C. 4)Industry does not qualify for EAJA dollars. 5)there is a case pending but there is no ruling at this point that either S&M or O&C settlements broke any law. You don't like it...tough. 6)You're not Mark Rutzick! Not even good or honest enough to carry his briefcase. Six Lines and you were wrong six times...A New Record. That's not even counting your calling these NGO's public advocacy groups. You must be so proud. Curious> Relax you all.... 21.09.2005 - 07:27 Everyone should take a deep breath and relax.....The rules of the game are simple. 1) If a decision is in favor of the environmetalist it is a good decision, and should be stretched to the breaking point to fit all other situations. 2) Any and all decisions, that either are not in favaor of, or find at fault, any environmentalist or actions of environmental groups are wrong and should be completely ignored. 3) The use of facts is strictly prohibited if not in line with the environmental idea. 4)If you can repeat it in a chant, by a group of people many of which have an allergic reaction to soap, then it is a fact. 5)If you rely on the government for subsidence for your daily bread then you are a good person. 6) If you have ambition and work for a living at something that uses natural resources then you are definitely a bad person and should be flogged (but gently because we care) 7)You must protest against all things that enable you to have the right to protest. 8)You must abuse your rights to the fullest extent possible, and scream at the top of your lungs if someone else even slightly exercises their rights. If we can all just play by and understand these rules then we will be much more EQUAL in are discussions. Chane Sau>