Posted on 12/30/2004 5:10:03 PM PST by BenLurkin
Thank you for proving your ignorance.
False. What we have here is fraud under the color of authority.
Besides, that which might be claimed to be "criminal" by an agrieved person's counsel may well be a "legal requirement", or merely something considered customary.
Fraud for profit using government power is criminal, no matter which way one looks at it. That the plaintiff couldn't find a government attorney to bring the case necessitates this approach.
government is bound to provide counsel to the government's own employees unless and until the deed is found by appropriate authority to be a crime.
So, if a government employee embezzles funds the government is bound to fund their defense? BS. The US attorney could easily have issued a finding that the case is criminal.
We all know who you worked for 30 years.
OK, smart person, please give me a definition for "weed" that's applicable to one species in all places for all time.
How about 38 years!
There. That's much better.
Would appear you weren't able to convince a US Attorney there was much substance in your accusations. It's no wonder. And regarding "embezzlement", it's still not a slam dunk even when you find a USPS window clerk slipping money out of his cashdrawer. There are procedures to be followed, and the clerks' rights have to be protected. Of course those folks are all represented by a union, but the culture of USPS doesn't allow for anyone but a top level manager getting away with theft without prosecution.
You also have to allow for the thought that the employee against whom charges are brought might win, and then what? It happens! Do you know what that costs to rectify? There's much more involved than back pay.
I'd like to see you provide iron-clad information that the folks you are accusing of misusing their positions actually made a profit and have the money jingling in their pockets. BTW, don't go arguing that "well the value of their own property increased" because we don't know that until the property goes on the market. For all we know, absent that other development (which would bring in a better grocery store and a Gucci outlet) their property values might have declined. Then, again, there's been this big drought in the West for the last 5 years, and who knows what causes what to happen.
Regarding the information that should have been confidential, please post a copy of it here so we can all have a chance at evaluating it.
http://www.r-calfusa.com/survey.htm
U.S. Forest Service Employees, Other Conspirators Sued by Marina Point Development
Associates under Federal Anti-Racketeering Act
11.08.04, 12:22 PM ET
Group Accused of Abusing "the Color of Their Authority and the Cloak of Their Office for
Their own Personal Benefit"
Three federal employees have been accused of abusing their government offices and authority
to create a complex conspiracy aimed at scuttling a Big Bear Lake development in which they
had undisclosed personal interests, according to a lawsuit filed Nov. 3 in U.S. District Court,
Central District, Western Division.
Gene Zimmerman, Scott Eliason and Robin Eliason -- all employees of the U.S. Forest
Service -- are named as co-conspirators in the lawsuit brought by Marina Point Development
Associates, the landowner of a 12.5-acre development site and marina on the north shore of
Big Bear Lake. The lawsuit alleges the three -- along with one other principal member of a
purported environmental group called "Friends of Fawnskin" and a number of "John Does" to
provide for additional people to be named as more evidence is gathered -- defrauded Marina
Point Development in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act by attempting to illegally stop the project that was under construction in order to advance
their private interests.
"The defendants in this case, employees of the U.S. Forest Service, knowingly and willfully
abused the color of their authority and the cloak of their office for their own personal benefit,"
said S. Wayne Rosenbaum of the law firm Foley & Lardner, attorney for Marina Point
Development Associates. "They issued false information about the project to other
government agencies. They misrepresented their personal opposition as official U.S. Forest
Service positions, plotted and conspired with other people who had a financial interest in the
project's demise, improperly shared government information that was not public, and withheld
information that my client was entitled to have under the Freedom of Information Act. On top
of these illegal acts, the defendants then attempted to destroy evidence on their
government-issued computers. If government employees are somehow exempt from the
criminal behavior that the government itself is charged with prosecuting, then we should all be
very afraid."
The lawsuit alleges that the three U.S. Forest Service employees, as well as one member of
the Friends of Fawnskin advisory committee, were active plotters in the strategy to
misrepresent information and confuse other government officials in order to stop the project,
and which could allow the U.S. Forest Service to then obtain the land in question below fair
market value. Rosenbaum said all those named in the lawsuit own property nearby the
development and self-interest, rather than a legitimate concern for the environment, is at the
heart of their opposition. Strategies the group allegedly discussed at meetings include an
attempt to cut off Marina Point's water supply through a shady land swap, according to
Rosenbaum.
"The group was willing to support the U.S. Forest Service in giving 300 acres of public land in
exchange for the 68 acres that adjoins Marina Point Development which could, in turn, allow
U.S. Forest Service to cut off the water supply to my client and force him out," said
Rosenbaum. "Other corrupt strategies were continual misrepresentations and outright
falsehoods about the existence of endangered plants, bald eagle habitats and the like. Evidence
of these illegal activities can be found in the minutes of the Friends of Fawnskin meetings,
which were found on the computer where they were created -- the government computer
issued to Robin Eliason by the U.S. Forest Service."
The Marina Point project dates back to 1981, when a group of investors purchased the
property. At the time, it was the site of a deteriorated tavern, RV camp/campground, and
marina and was an environmental eyesore. After purchase, the landowners improved the
property and protected the shoreline and marina jetties. In 1982, they began processing their
project through governmental agencies for approval. The project included a 133-unit resort on
12.5 acres with many acres of landscaped open space, a restoration of the pre-existing
Fawnskin marina, and environmental improvements to the lake.
Approval of the project was complex due to the involvement of various governmental agencies
that had jurisdiction over the area, including the lake itself. After a comprehensive
environmental impact report was certified, the original project was finally approved in 1983. In
1989, when the project had to be re-approved due to a water moratorium, an U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 404 permit was acquired for the project's shoreline protection. During the
Army Corps of Engineers process, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service expressed concern about
nearby bald eagles, causing Marina Point Development Associates to redesign the project to
include a lagoon and bald eagle reserve. The same agency reversed itself in 1991 by
concluding the project had no adverse affect on the bald eagle and advised Marina Point to
revert to the original design, minus the four-star eagle lodging.
In December 1991, San Bernardino County approved the final project design after another
Environmental Impact Report was certified, and the necessary permits were secured from the
Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Board, the California
Department of Fish and Game and the Big Bear Municipal Water District. The government
agencies involved regularly extended the permits throughout the 90s, when the economic
recession caused delays in start-up.
In 1999, defendant Gene Zimmerman, supervisor of the local U.S. Forest Service office,
approached the Marina Point landowners and expressed U.S. Forest Service interest in
purchasing the property in order to keep it operating as a public RV park/campground and
marina. After a disputed federal appraisal placed the property's value at far less than fair
market value, the landowner ceased negotiations with the U.S. Forest Service and moved
forward with approval of the final map in order to begin construction of the resort. Around the
same time, said Rosenbaum, the Eliasons joined other owners of nearby properties who
formed the Friends of Fawnskin for the express purpose of stopping this and another proposed
development on the north shore of the lake. The Friends of Fawnskin began their campaign to
derail the project's ongoing construction, with the Eliasons illegally using the resources and
titles of their government office. Though Zimmerman may have only had indirect contact with
the organization, meeting minutes and other documents uncovered indicate he was aware of
his employees' illegal actions and he was "on board."
The conspiracy achieved success when the Army Corps of Engineers dragged its feet on
extending the existing 404 permit, something they had done four times previously and had
verbally agreed to do again. In this instance the agency cited U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish
& Wildlife concerns over environmental impact, including the bald eagle -- concerns that,
according to Rosenbaum and existing documents, had been resolved nearly a decade before
and every time permits were extended. The Army Corps of Engineers, however, went back on
their verbal agreement and eight months later enforced the expiration date. The group of
conspirators then used the lapsed permit to obtain an injunction that stopped construction.
The lawsuit alleges the sources of the information that re-ignited concern over the bald eagle
were Robin and Scott Eliason. Robin Eliason ignored the official U.S. Forest Service data that
she is charged with collecting and which shows the project is not in any critical habitat for the
bald eagle. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, she created and circulated a document of misleading
information, without disclosing her personal interest, her membership in the Friends of
Fawnskin or that these opinions contradicted actual U.S. Forest Service data. Scott Eliason
also sent misleading e-mail and other communications to Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service employees concerning endangered plants and animals at the project
site.
"Scott Eliason had been employed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife office for many years prior to
joining the U.S. Forest Service and had worked closely with Army Corps of Engineers
employees on environmental issues at Big Bear Lake. He knew his communications would
carry great weight with these agencies. However, he also never disclosed to these employees
his personal interests, his membership in the Friends of Fawnskin or the fact that his concerns
did not represent the official position of the U.S. Forest Service," said Rosenbaum.
"Marina Point Development Associates has followed all of the rules since its acquisition of the
property and should be moving forward on a project that will not only provide economic and
environmental benefit to the community, but will actually enhance aquatic and bald eagle
habitat," said Rosenbaum. "Instead, Marina Point has been the victim of a conspiracy, by the
very government employees who make and are supposed to enforce the rules. We knew that
there were outside forces working against us, but we were unable to prove it until the Friends
of Fawnskin sued us in state and federal court. Once we were finally able to get the
documents we had sought under the Freedom of Information Act, we found clear evidence of
the conspiracy we thought existed, but had not been able to prove, even though the various
players claimed that the information could not be found or, in some instances, tried to destroy
it. We've only received a fraction of the documents that we are entitled, and already we have
enough evidence for a RICO action against these four individuals. When we get all of the
information the law calls for, it is possible that others will also be held criminally liable."
Visit http://www.nstpr.com/press_kit/marina_point.html for more information.
Why can't we file another RICO suit against the people in the Justice Dept. to prevent them from defending these racketeers?
BTTT!!!!!!
Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in our own government!
And this would be a good thing for several reasons.
They would have to get a private job, starve, or become a criminal. Thus they become producers, remove their load from the system, or become identified for what they are, and subject to the control of honest citizens.
Cost of government goes down, economic opportunity goes up.
Obstructionists can no longer get paid royally to obstruct.
Those already in government jobs can be held accountable for the damage they have done.
Government tax revenues will increase, as conspiracies to steal private property will become a sure road to debtors prison, government stolen property will return to owners and the tax rolls.
Production from that property will increase the Federal tax base.
A large number of those government employees would become allies of the people because the government (in their mind) screwed them too.
Government size would shrink and it would accidentally become better government.
There would be no incentive to assist illegal aliens, as some citizen would take the shirt off your back for your participation in an ongoing criminal conspiracy involving insurrection.
All in all, removing legal protections for government workers (including civil service) is long overdue.
How did you know that the California prison guards are a criminally corrupt parasitic organization? You are back East.
Is there something you wanted to say that was meaningful to this debate? Whatever it is, NP sure screwed it up for your side didn't he?! (ROTFLMAO)
In that case I'm bringing a RICO suit against three posters on this thread and will get as rich as I can. I am, at this moment, preparing to acquire photos of their real property to see if it's really worth going after.
You might like to join me in this since there could be more than enough for all of us. My fee for the initial proposal is rather modest. Just call 555-1212 for the details.
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.