Radical Environmental Groups Extorting Federal Money with Lawsuit Threats
To avoid lawsuits, American tax dollars are being used to pay off radical environmental groups. The groups are using the money to threaten more lawsuits.
Research provided to the Western Legacy Alliance has documented payments of at least $4,697,978 in taxpayer dollars to 14 environmental groups in 19 states and the District of Columbia. These payments are not being made because the radical groups won a legal battle or proved that the federal government was destroying the environment. Instead, they are being made to get environmental groups to go away — supposedly, a better option than forcing these groups to prove their case in court.
And now these same radical groups are extorting millions from major corporations and local governments using the same tactics.
On July 15, 2010, it was announced that the Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) extorted $22 million from El Paso Corporation to drop their legal protests of the Ruby Pipeline project. Ruby Pipeline is a 680-mile pipeline being constructed across four Western states to bring natural gas from Wyoming to Oregon. As part of the deal, El Paso did not change the route or any other aspect of the pipeline — it just paid ONDA and WWP to go away.
In another case, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) extorted almost $1 million from Alameda County in California in exchange for dropping its protests to a city’s residential and commercial development project.
The general theme: money changes hands, development moves forward, and the taxpayers and consumers get stuck with the both the litigation bill and higher fuel, home, and other prices as corporations pass on the extortion payments to the consumer.
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), attorneys are only supposed to be paid if they represent the prevailing parties in a lawsuit against the federal government. According to EAJA, a prevailing party must achieve a court-sanctioned change in the position of the federal agency through litigation.
Under other federal statutes with EAJA-like fee-shifting provisions whose funds come out of the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, attorneys’ fees are only to be paid if the attorney achieved some success in the litigation for the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs had to achieve some benefit from the litigation through the courts.
All too often, however, radical environmental groups sue the federal government based on claims that the government engaged in a procedural violation of some federal statute or regulation. In just the last nine years, nine of the hundreds of radical environmental groups filed over 3500 lawsuits against the federal government. Most often, the statutes that the government is claimed to have violated are statutes that require a particular time frame, procedure, or process be followed. These statutes do not force the government to make a certain decision related to an environmental issue.
Here is a prime example of government creating a problem where there didn’t used to be one. Although the author doesn’t state when this legal extortion began, my guess it would be around the time that the Clean Air Act was passed or when the EPA was established.
While perhaps not expicitly unconstitutional, this doesn’t sound to me like a government that’s acting for the general welfare of the country or the benefit of its citizens. It’s all perfectly legal, of course. It’s also a perfect example of why the EPA should be abolished, with this responsibility being returned to the states where it belongs.
There is no valid reason for this situation to continue to exist.
Actually, it is not just in the realm of environmental issues that this game is played by the government. Similar “litigation” and settlements go on in dubious “civil rights” cases, Indian Affairs/Native American cases and many others. The Justice Department has become a conduit to funnel money to left wing / multicultural groups. They have no intention of representing the taxpayer in these cases. The Justice Department proceeds on the assumption that the plaintiff has a case and is entitled to compensation. Thus the government is using taxpayer money to finance the harassment of taxpayers by fringe groups.
“These extortion payments are occurring when roads are widened, bridges are built, water supplies are updated, timber is cut, and fishermen are out to sea. In a time when Americans are looking for work and tax relief, our money should be spent to support American business, not restrain it.”
This is exactly what Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been doing for years, holding companies hostage on some flimsy complaint by an employee or two. The company pays them off so they will go away. These phony and real environmentalists took a page from their book, and it is not only costing the taxpayers boo coo bucks, it is depriving us of millions of jobs as well.
Of course this situation should exist! When any person/corporate entity or governmental agency is sued, they look at their legal chances of winning in court. If things don’t look very promising, you pay off the other side to go away. This particular strategy is one of the foundations of our legal system. (Not merely “perfectly legal”)
Leaving the protection of the environment up to the states is an asinine idea. Pollution crosses state borders my misinformed friend. The legal tangles involved trying to organize law suits involving many states is bad for the legal system and bad for the environment which we all share. For example California has been passing some pretty stringent antipollution laws. Let’s say they decided to drop all of that (which would make you very happy I’m sure), then poor Nevada gets stuck with all kinds of particulate matter dropping right on Las Vegas from the Los Angeles basin. What is Nevada to do? We don’t want the Supreme Court spending all of their time trying to decide on standing and jurisdiction issues with states suing each other. Just a colossal waste of time. The same holds true with the protection of endangered species (animals don’t recognize our arbitrary state borders). This should be obvious.
The problem with Republicans rejecting anything that has even of whiff of environmental protection around it is that it makes it appear that they put corporate profits before their own personal health and the health of their children. Just because people organize into an advocacy group for a cause does not make them “radical environmentalists”. Republicans have been trying to label all environmental advocacy as radical for years now and while it does gain traction with the misinformed, once you peel back the layers, sensible minds agree with the EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air act and other rational self-preserving laws and regulations.
Just come out and say that you don’t give a rat’s patoot about a clean environment and leave it at that. Don’t couch your short-sighted and ridiculous arguments in some kind of state’s rights malarkey.
You didn’t even read the article, did you? This isn’t about the environment. It’s about extortion.
Nate: As a shill for progressives you think you sound erudite and capable of discourse, but in truth, you are just parroting the progressive line.
As as been brought to your limited attention, the commentary is about radical environmentalist using extortion to gain money. For too long the left has been using our legal and extra-legal system to extort money from business and industry. Much to the shame of the nation, WE allowed it to occur because we on the right abide by the Constitution and believe in our laws. So we didn’t fight back.
The time to defang and defund these wackos is coming. Also there needs to be a vigorous legal action against these same leftist envoro-organizations who receive federal money for lawyers and then turn around and sue the federal government over EPA and enviro-related issues.
According to you it is right for wackos to sue for a darter fish and have millions of agricultural land deprived of water thereby putting many of the left’s new favorite group out of work while ensuring that our food supply has been made smaller thus driving up prices.
Blotto- Environmental groups work within our legal system. My point is that many different environmental groups use this same system and tactics. In the article all environmental advocacy is lumped together as “radical” and is defined as such, because of the use of legal tactics. The legal “extortion” as you believe. That’s not accurate. There is an important distinction. You understand language matters. In a non-benign way the author links peaceful, legal environmental advocacy with the crazies.
Is there such thing as the radical environmentalist? Sure. It can be measured by a philosophical stance as well as by advocacy tactics. I would save that Darter fish under the circumstances you listed. But I wouldn’t call that radical. Not if done using the courts. Just a different way of looking at things. There are people using the courts (getting injunctions mostly) to force companies/municipalities to follow the laws that are already in place. It’s all about money. Companies are willing to pay. That’s how the system is set up. If you don’t like the system. Fix the system. If you don’t like environmental laws, change the laws but don’t say they are one in the same.
Radical are the guys and gals out there putting their life on the line saving whales or throwing ink on ladies wearing fur on the streets. (Or physically blocking the diversion of water to save some little fish.) There is nothing radical about using the court system itself.
I’m not defending our legal system (which is clearly flawed) and filled with radicals by the way. Those radicals however, passed into that category on their own. Using the courts isn’t what makes them radical.
At least you’re an honest shill. Wrong on every account, but I can respect that. When you see more value to a darter fish than humans then you fall into the radical category. When you think publically funded lawyers working the system against individuals, companies and the government (irony) and its okay, you are a radical.
Yes the system is broken and full of fraud committed by the left. And only the left. It must be fixed. It has ruined industry and many, many individuals.
Now if you supported doing away with this extortion and using the legal system for the financial gain of a few and insted used a plebescite to solve these issues, then we would have some common ground.
…..”the health of their children” – it’s always about the children. You can tell this guy is a leftist when he starts quoting sentimental morality. He has no concept of right or wrong, or what the definition of extortion is. Sue the government, get paid of and walk away as if nothing has happened. Where is the environmentalism in that?
Hey, Nate. What year was it when everything was all just right in our environment? I can’t figure out how these environmental groups know that what they are peddling is an improvement in our environment? Please help.
Actually, Nate, the calculation goes like this: Hmmm, we can fight it in court. While we are doing that, the interest payments on the financing for the project still have to be made. Oh, and we have to pay our attorney’s fees over the three-four years this will take. And, of course, we’ll probably get the OJ Simpson jury 2.0, which means that we might lose regardless of the evidence. And then there’s the appeals process; even if we don’t, they will, so more time, interest, lawyer fees. Oh, and of course, there’s the excellent chance that they’ll just find some other nit to pick and start the process again.
Or we can pay them a million, the case goes away tomorrow, and we can write the settlement agreement to cover the entire site for the rest of the project. Since we have functioning brains, unlike Nate, we’ll take option 2.
Nate your are a good Democrat you believe any BS Obama and the progressives politicians sell you. You environmentalist are screwing up the free enterprise system and can not even see what your doing!
You think this is news? A local group stuck a friend of mine 50K (a tax deductable contribution) so he could plant grapes on his own property. Happens all the time.
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), attorneys are only supposed to be paid if they represent the prevailing parties in a lawsuit against the federal government. According to EAJA, a prevailing party must achieve a court-sanctioned change in the position of the federal agency through litigation.
Under other federal statutes with EAJA-like fee-shifting provisions whose funds come out of the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, attorneys’ fees are only to be paid if the attorney achieved some success in the litigation for the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs had to achieve some benefit from the litigation through the courts.
All too often, however, radical environmental groups sue the federal government based on claims that the government engaged in a procedural violation of some federal statute or regulation. In just the last nine years, nine of the hundreds of radical environmental groups filed over 3500 lawsuits against the federal government. Most often, the statutes that the government is claimed to have violated are statutes that require a particular time frame, procedure, or process be followed. These statutes do not force the government to make a certain decision related to an environmental issue.
I’m no lawyer, but Falen is, and if she’s right in the three above paragraphs about the statutes, then federal agencies paying blackmail to the enviros is not only not “one of the foundations of our legal system,” but is specifically against the law.
The people that make up these “environmental” outfits resent the concept and the fact of private ownership–of land or anything else. They also like money. A lot. The fact that so many lawyers, judges and federal bureaucrats have the same resentments and enthusiasms just makes it easy for them to extort taxpayer dollars, laundered through the court system.
“To avoid lawsuits, American tax dollars are being used to pay off radical environmental groups.”
This is a dubious contention. We know by the record that the tax sheltered eco-advocates have their favorite federal judges. We know that they tie up the courts as they act like vigilantes for oversights of the federal agencies: BLM an Forest Service. We know that they raise fundings for their causes and organizations through litigation and the publicity of their court trials. They do not have to either win or conclude a case to garner tax free income as donations. What could be criminally wrong with this picture? Do we have a fifth column of government at work at our expense for dubious causes?
Extortion by “whistle blowers” has long been a problem for the nuclear power industry. The plant owners would have a $10 billion plant almost ready to go on line and some laborer working with an anti-nuclear group would pipe up about unsafe broom handles or some such and file a complaint with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NRC in turn would have to stop the licensing process and hold “hearings” to get to the heart of the matter.
Well, time IS money so the owners would just slip the whistle blower and his lawyers $40k or so to withdraw the complaint.
This happened over and over again. The utility owners even LIKED the process since it gave them a quick out before the con game became too widely understood and a bunch of freelancers got it on it. Once the operating license was issued, the rules changed and the extortion didn’t work.
Fascinating – could you please provide a link to the WLA research/documentation?
The enviro-nuts, like the corrupt unions, have a total corrupting influence on the “progressive” (socialist) party. They are the “special interests” of the Dems, and the Dems can’t go to the bathroom without permission from them. They should both be blown off and ignored by the government. Neither is capable of coming near the truth.
The Democrats keep trying to portray the Tea Party as radical extremists, yet their own special interests, the corrupt unions and the environmentalists have proven to be the radical extremists.
As long as we are going to let lawyers write our laws so that even they can not understand what the intent is, or GOD forbid what the truth is. We will have this problem for the American Tax Payer and the lawyers just keep going to the bank with our money. All laws or statues should be written in plain everyday language so everyone can understand its meaning. Most of our lawyers make something simple, very complicated to raise their own power and stature in society by legally steal as much money as they can from us. Life is simple we make it complicated by letting some people do things because we are taught they are smarter than us. Well just take a good look at our congressmen and senator`s and you will see a lot of dim light bulbs in the bunch.
The enviros are low-life wiseguys running an enviromental protection racket who are aided by lousy lawyers who can’t cut it the real world.
This is the way EVERY enviro, minority or empathetic-rooted gang, err, ‘organization’ has gotten tax dollars for their self-serving, chest-thumping campaigns whose only purpose is to put coffers in the VIP’s of said organizations.
Heck the Congressional Black Caucus spends more money on their ‘conventions’ than on scholarships sparingly doled out..
Ms. Falen, the same can be said of La Raza employing the same tactics in getting ‘donations’ from BofA and HUNDREDS of other companies. the same canbe said of HUNDREDS of sister organizations to La Raza who shake down the Fed for their ‘equal rights’ shoddily run ‘Head Start’ and like minded ‘Day Care Centers’ who are constantly under investigation for fraud, misuse of federal funds, etc.,
Empathy.. and the threat of seeing a courtroom, even if the charges are moot – the damage is done. Sadly, the end result is ‘Pay up’ to avoid unfounded yet crippling results.
I have personal experience with this at my local court, and it’s not just greenies and lefties who do it. One case I handled was funded by the National Rifle Association, and its only goal was to punish a local government agency (by making it spend attorney fees opposing the lawsuit) for closing a shooting range due to toxic lead contamination. That’s right, the range was closed for envvironmental reasons and the lawsuit punished that. Here’s how bogus it was – the range was closed before the lawsuit was filed, and no one protested the closing. The NRA came in afterwards and sued on the grounds that there should have been an environmental impact report about the environmental consequences of ceasing to pollute the environment with lead.
But it is also true that this is how Democrats in government funnel money to their pet causes, who are of course generous with campaign contributions to the Democratic politicians who order that the lefties who bring bogus environmental cases be given taxpayer money to go away.
A well known strategy: lawfare. The Marxists and Mohammedans use the systems of liberal democracy as a weapon against it. Not to worry: when they take over, such innovations will be quickly punished.
Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8&feature=related. Completely hits the nail on the head in explaining where we are today in America. Filmed in 1983, this guy, Yuri Bezmenov, even speaks of a “savior” at one point, and it is eerily relevant.