The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: They file suits; you pay

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,986

    Default They file suits; you pay

    http://tinyurl.com/ydrwfhq

    They file suits; you pay

    Posted on: 3.6.2010 11:26:43 AM

    <http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=124ECF05FDF84451B3E79A337664CA3C&nm =Blog&type=Blog&mod=Email+Topic&mid=67D6564029914A D3B204AD35D8F5F780&tier=11&id=B17D969ABDC648008892 1FC87371AC92&Title=They+file+suits%3B+you+pay>


    By SALLY SCHUFF

    I bet you didn't know that taxpayers often foot the bill for the legal
    fees when major activist organizations successfully bring lawsuits
    against the federal government.

    Millions of tax dollars have gone to big groups like Sierra Club, the
    Natural Resources Defense Council and The Humane Society of the United
    States.

    This tax-funded generosity came as news to me last week, and all because
    three members of Congress teamed up to make it public. They are
    sponsoring a bill to bring oversight and full public disclosure of
    payments made under the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) -
    something that apparently hasn't happened for the past 15 years.

    "It's time to shine some light on the hijacking of the equal justice law
    by some groups and the environmental litigation industry that supports
    their 'stop everything' agenda," said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.),
    who is particularly concerned about the lawsuits' impact on public land
    use.

    She is joined by Reps. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D., S.D.) and Rob
    Bishop (R., Utah) in a bipartisan attempt to bring the payments into the
    open. They are underpinning their effort with two new studies that
    analyze which organizations received payments and how open the reporting
    system was - or, more accurately, wasn't.

    Lummis called on environmental organizations that have benefited from
    the payments to support the transparency.

    When Congress passed EAJA in 1980, it was supposed to "help individuals,
    small businesses and nonprofits with limited means seek judicial redress
    against the federal government," the three sponsors explained in a joint
    statement. Those who won their cases or prevailed in out-of-court
    settlements could seek repayment of legal fees.

    However, the new studies -- one by a Wyoming law firm and one by
    Virginia Tech University - show that major environmental groups have
    been the chief beneficiaries.

    The Wyoming study found that "14 environmental groups have brought more
    than 1,200 federal cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia and
    have collected more than $37 million in taxpayer dollars through EAJA or
    other similar laws," the statement reported. The data do not include
    settlements or fees sealed from public view.

    The study, which Feedstuffs obtained, showed that the payments were
    sometimes reported in public documents, but often they were not.

    "For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of
    the environmental litigation industry. Without improved oversight, EAJA
    will continue to be abused by organizations that have made a cottage
    industry out of suing the federal government in an effort to advance
    their radical political agendas," Bishop said.

    The bill, H.R. 4717, would "reinstate and consolidate tracking and
    reporting requirements under the Department of Justice and would require
    DOJ to publish an online, searchable database of EAJA payments that is
    open to the public. It would also authorize an audit of the last 15
    years when EAJA operated with absolutely no oversight," the announcement
    said.

    The Virginia Tech study, which surveyed five federal agencies using
    Freedom of Information Act requests, closely jived with the Wyoming
    study, the sponsors noted, and the depth of the disclosure problem was
    confirmed when the study found that two of the queried agencies "could
    provide absolutely no data on EAJA payments."

    The lawmakers listed several groups, particularly those whose members
    use public lands, as supporters of the legislation -- the National
    Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA) and Public Lands Council among them.

    "Because the government has neglected to provide oversight, EAJA has
    become a breeding ground for abuse by radical environmental groups,"
    NCBA president Steve Foglesong said in a statement. "The fact that
    millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have been awarded with virtually
    no accounting of who received the payments is unacceptable."

  2. #2
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    The law requires the Federal government to pay legal fees when it loses a civil case and there is a finding that its legal position was not substantially justified. It seems to me that this provisions protects all of us from arbitrary efforts by the Federal government to use its legal power to intimidate. Fro a tort reform perspective, maybe a similar requirement should exist in all civil litigation. If you sue me and you not only lose but your position is not substantially jusitifed, you pay all legal bill that I incurred to defend myself.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The law requires the Federal government to pay legal fees when it loses a civil case and there is a finding that its legal position was not substantially justified. It seems to me that this provisions protects all of us from arbitrary efforts by the Federal government to use its legal power to intimidate. Fro a tort reform perspective, maybe a similar requirement should exist in all civil litigation. If you sue me and you not only lose but your position is not substantially jusitifed, you pay all legal bill that I incurred to defend myself.

    If you believe in that last line, I'm flabbergasted. Do you have any more astonishing revelations to tell us? Better yet, do you believe you can convince any legal firm or legislator to make that a law...as it should be?


    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    If you believe in that last line, I'm flabbergasted. Do you have any more astonishing revelations to tell us? Better yet, do you believe you can convince any legal firm or legislator to make that a law...as it should be?


    UB
    I do not think it will happen, and believe there are some good arguments against it. However, it is a concept that exists in current law to a very limited extent (Judges may award legal costs against parties that bring frivolous suits), This would be more a matter of shifting the standard from frivlous to substantially justified.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Jeff...

    This is about the fact that there is no accountability in the program and that the program largely seems to be used today to sue the government by activist groups. It's not a simple matter of "legal aid" for indigents.

    Eric

  6. #6
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Jeff...

    This is about the fact that there is no accountability in the program and that the program largely seems to be used today to sue the government by activist groups. It's not a simple matter of "legal aid" for indigents.

    Eric
    I understood your point. But when I began researching how the "program" operate, I found it is not a program but simply law, much like rule 11 (making attorneys and plaintiffs liable for frivolous law suits), is simply a law. If the Federal government or an agency forces legal action by an individual or group without a reasonably justifiable case, it is liable for legal costs incurred in the action. The determination of liability and the amount to be paid is made by the judge in the case, not through a separate process. All such awards are a matter of public record as with any court judgment. In fact, if liberal groups are more likely to be beneficiaries of such proceedings (I saw no evidence to suggest they are), it would suggest that liberal groups are more often the victims of frivolous government enforcement activities than conservative groups.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Jeff...

    This is about the fact that there is no accountability in the program and that the program largely seems to be used today to sue the government by activist groups. It's not a simple matter of "legal aid" for indigents.

    Eric
    Did you miss this:
    .... taxpayers often foot the bill for the legal fees when major activist organizations successfully bring lawsuits against the federal government.
    When the government makes a bad decision that is contrary to law and someone holds them accountable through use of the justice system why do you think it is not appropriate for the government to "often" foot the bill since the government screwed up?

    When an organization loses they do not get their legal fees covered, which is a clear disincentive for filing claims that have no substantive chance of winning.

    edit: Add complete transparency, no big deal.
    Last edited by Henry V; 03-09-2010 at 09:20 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Henry-

    I guess I would feel more benign about this if the US had a system of "loser pays'. We don't. Under this program, the government pays either way in some cases.

    However, the real thrust of the article is that .... nobody knows. The EAJA is this amorphous cloud that just drifts along and apparently there are no budgetary or fiduciary controls on it.

    The HSUS is a $100 million a year program. In 2009 they spent less than $500,000 on the direct protection of animals and $2.5 million on pension fund contributions. Yet they seem to be regulars at this particular trough. For that matter, will the HSUS expect EAJA funds to defend them in the just announced RICO suit? Nobody knows and they should.

    Eric

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •