Posted on 03/04/2005 7:03:38 AM PST by madfly
(Tucson) Judge Richard Fields entered formal judgment on March 2, 2005 against the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental activist corporation, and found that they must pay $600,000 in actual and punitive damages to Arizona rancher Jim Chilton and the Chilton Ranch and Cattle Company.The formal judgment confirmed a Tucson jurys verdict, delivered on January 21, 2005, finding the Center for Biological Diversity guilty of making false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements against Jim Chilton, a fifth generation Arizona rancher whose pioneering ancestors drove cattle into Arizona in the 1880s.
The jury awarded Chilton $100,000 in actual damages, and $500,000 in punitive damages because the Center for Biological Diversity defamed him and his family business in a two-page press release which included links to 21 photographs posted on the Centers website, from July 2002 until July 2003.
In his ruling, Judge Fields entered a formal judgment declaring that the Center and its employees made false statements in their press release. The judge also found that the press release contained misleading photographs and did not accurately describe the condition of Chiltons 21,500 acre Forest Service grazing allotment, located northwest of Nogales, Arizona. The Center for Biological Diversity, a high profile environmental activist corporation, has written many petitions leading to the listing of species as endangered. Scientists have questioned whether some of these species are actually endangered. At trial, the Center claimed to have filed over 170 lawsuits against federal agencies. According to Chilton, these lawsuits have stopped school construction, terminated thousands of lumber production jobs, put Arizona and New Mexico communities into economic distress, and driven many western ranchers to the verge of bankruptcy. Kraig Marton, an attorney from the Phoenix-based law firm of Jaburg and Wilk, who represented Chilton when he fought back, stated this case shows how pictures can lie, said Marton. We are very pleased with the ruling, he added, and noted it is about time that the tables were turned on this group. Chilton said the suit was filed to challenge the way the Center for Biological Diversity consistently does business. They dont use science, they just wear people down and drive them out of business, said Chilton. They routinely use endangered species to raise money and fund their attacks on the cowboy and the western culture.
Chilton has also stated that after his expenses for this lawsuit are covered, he plans to donate the remaining money to the Arizona Cattle Growers Association to help spread the word that modern ranching conserves habitat for wildlife, increases biodiversity, and reduces threats of wildfire. At trial, the jury was shown the photographs disseminated by the Center that focused on tiny barren areas and implied that the range had been devastated by cattle.
Chiltons lawyer put up photographs taken from the same sites looking north, south, east, and west that revealed a vibrant and thriving environment. Experts testified that the allotment had been well managed by the Chiltons and, in fact, had been written up by leading range scientists as a Success Story, in the professional journal, Rangelands.
The jury agreed with Chiltons claims, finding that the Center knowingly disseminated false and malicious statements in a news advisory, and that misleading photographs were used to harm the Chiltons after the Centers unsuccessful attempt to block the renewal of Chiltons grazing permit. Chilton, who felt elated and vindicated, said the jury had done an admirable job of understanding days of scientific testimony. This case will help the public become aware that ranchers support real recovery of endangered species because quality habitat makes quality ranches.
Chilton emphasized that this case demonstrates the need to strengthen the Endangered Species Act to close loopholes that have allowed groups like the Center for Biological Diversity to make money by suing the federal government. It was revealed at trial that the Center collected over $990,000 in 2003 from lawsuits it filed, mostly against the government. Chilton decried the Centers list-and-sue policy as preventing the agencies and landowners from actually working to recover species.
According to Chilton, Now is the time to get recovery results from the Endangered Species Act by requiring peer-reviewed science for listings, providing incentives for landowners, recreationalists and rural businesses to preserve open space and improve habitat for species. Chilton concluded that we must actually recover species, not just play the game of listing them to put money in activist coffers and put Americans out of work.
For more information regarding this case, please contact Kraig Marton at (602) 248 - 1017 or (602) 570 3510 or PRfect Media at (480) 706-6880.
time to sue Meryl Strep and a few other SPOKESMEN for false claims like Alar and apples or electric wires cause cancer.
|
February 16, 2005: In an unusual episode in the longstanding 'ranchers vs. environmentalists' drama, a jury awarded Arizona rancher and investment banker Jim Chilton $600,000 in actual and punitive damages to be paid by the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. The non-profit environmental group, which since its founding in 1989 has made its reputation by filing lawsuits on behalf of endangered species, in July 2002 posted photos on its website allegedly depicting environmental damage caused by Chilton's cattle on a 21,5000-acre Forest Service allotment northwest of Nogales, Arizona. The center posted the photos as part of a campaign to bar renewal of Chilton's Forest Service grazing permit. Chilton, a fifth generation rancher, sued the group for libel, charging that photos and captions willfully misrepresented his ranching practices. The center's lawyer argued that the photos and other material represented the environmental group's opinions, and thus that they should be protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. Kieran Suckling, the center's director, was quoted as saying, "We did things with the best of intentions. If there were some mistakes, they were honest mistakes." After two-weeks of testimony, 21 witnesses and more than 100 exhibits the jury, in a 9-1 decision, ruled the claims made about Chilton were indeed, false, unfair, libelous and defamatory. Chilton promised that after paying for his legal expenses and reimbursing himself for costs he would donate the remainder of the award to the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association. Read the full story at: http://mobile.azstarnet.com/sn/pda/58068.html |
Thanks for the ping!
Best news of the day.
Whatever this rancher did to sue these a-holes should be copied a thousand times until these eco-fascists are broke and wearing signs that say "Will whine for a sandwich."
Great news bump!
BTTT!
Thanks for the good news ping.
bump. :-)
If he is going to give the money to charity, then donate it to a fund to help poorer ranchers sue the envirowackos like he did and bankrupt them.
There is a federal law that allows such groups to sue the government and then whether they win or lose, be reimbursed by the government. If we could get Congress to repeal that law, it would destroy most of the liberal groups that use the courts to make defacto laws.
(...wide-eyed) ...really??? That's incredible!
One of the worst decisions was to grant these groups standing to sue on the basis that they represented the interests of the plants and animals or the public interest. How altruistic of them.
There is a coffee table book that was circulating in the early 1990s. I believe it was put together, in part, by the Sierra Club. It gave pictures of burned areas on Mt. Shasta and called them clear cuts. It also had a picture of serpentine soils with sparse trees (which is natural) and called it a clear cut.
It is the same as a recent story on the poor fishermen allocating chinook for next year and blaming it on the old fish die off. Heck, they way over-fished last year and they didn't come close to the minimum Magnusson Stevens Act threshold return numbers for the Klamath chinook. How the heck are we supposed to produce them if they never get here to spawn? But it is the irrigators fault.
Likewise, it has been determined that a huge number of juvenile salmon being produced in the Klamath tributaries are dying from disease (C-Shasta, columnaris and parvacapsula) when they hit the Klamath mainstem. But, no, it is the irrigators fault. -----phooey
BTTT!!!!!!
Yes, really. How do you think these groups keep getting the funds to sue the federal and state governments?
good news ping
"Halleluja! Amen! Sanity at last in the legal system. I hope this result is NOT reversed on the inevitable appeal and serves to keep the whacko tree huggers at bay."
I think this WAS the appeal.
I remember reading about the ruling a couple months ago.
good news ping
Awesome!
Lets not forget the pictures of ANWAR they keep showing, full of trees, flowers and wildlife. In truth, those pictures were taken 300 miles away from the proposed drilling sites.
The Center for Bio-Dumba##'# are already saying that they'll appeal to the 9th Circus.
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.