One has to wonder...

Did any of our local political orgs - Paykeeper, Humboldt Watershed Council, The so-called Alliance For Ethical Business, Healthy Humboldt, ERF, and others - have to answer questions like these asked by the IRS of 'conservative' groups:

List each past or present board member, officer, key employee and members of their families who:
a) Has served on the board of another organization. Has previously conducted similar activities for another entity.
b) Was, is or plans to be a candidate for public office. Indicate the nature of each candidacy.
c) Has previously conducted similar activities for another entity. (Like Humboldt Watershed Council/Healthy Humboldt?)(Like Local Solutions, Alliance for Ethical Business, Redwood Progressive, CREG, DUHC, Friends Of Paul Gallegos, Our Humboldt, Behind the Redwood Curtain, Curtain FOPG-Listserv
Friends of Chris Kerrigan, and God knows how many more...)
d) Has previously submitted an application for tax exempt status.

Please provide the following regarding your merchandise sales:
a) A vendor list. Indicate if the vendor is a related party.
b) A list of items sold.
c) Your cost for each item.
d) The selling price of each item.

Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school district.

Provide information regarding the (Humboldt Democrat Central Committee, ERF) and your
relationship.

Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.

It appears you have received training (______). Provide the following for all persons or organizations that have provided educational services to you:
a) The name of the person or organization.
b) A full description of the services provided.
c) The political affiliation of the person or organization.
d) A copy of the educational material used.

Provide details regarding your relationship with (Richard Salzman, Michael Shellenberger (sic).

Has your organization engaged in any activities with the news media? If so, please describe those activities in further detail and, if available, provide copies of articles printed or transcripts of items aired because of that activity. News media activity may include the following:

a) Newspaper advertisements
b) Press releases
c) Interviews with news media
d) Letters to the editor
e) Op-ed Pieces

A hard copy printout of the website – A PDF file emailed to the IRS will not suffice (and this is the high-tech Administration)

List all Social Media outlets being used (Facebook, Twitter, etc) and include hard copy printouts of every posting

A narrative description of every activity of your organization since June 30, 2010 (filing date) – And they do not want a mere description of the event, but full details – including; who conducted it, their qualifications, who was allowed to take part in the activities and how they were selected, was there a fee? (how much)

The IRS also wants to know about the members of the group and their roles and more, asking specifically for the “name, address, and corporate federal ID of all organizations that are members of our organization”
[...]
Public events are also under scrutiny with the IRS demanding to know the time, location and content schedule of each event.

Copies of any and all handouts must be included.

Names and credentials of all instructors and copies of any workshop materials used.
All speakers must be identified and copies of every speech must be included.

AND THERE'S MORE: “Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation? If so, provide the following … all communications, pamphlets, advertisements, and other materials.”

“Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums? If so, provide the following details… The issues that were discussed. Copies of all handouts provided.”

“The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they will spend on the event. Indicate the name and amount of compensation that will be paid to each person.”

“All copies of your corporate minutes from inception.”

“Please identify your volunteers.”

“The names of donors, contributors, and grantors.”

“Do you encourage eligible voters to educate themselves, register to vote, and vote? Explain in detail how you do this.”

“You were formed 12/28/10. Provide actual financial information for 2010 & 2011, and a budget for 2012. Provide details regarding each item listed.”
______________

This level of inquiry goes well beyond the scope of the Form 1023 application for exempt status - and appears to be applied to one side and not the other.

In particular, we know that Humboldt Watershed Council and The AEB ran ads here locally, oh so many years ago. The AEB never showed up on any of my searches of IRS databases. Humboldt Watershed Council, on the other hand has a substantial record on Guidestar, and in the early days, at least, showed their 'educational' requirement was fulfilled.

It's quite a racket.

And, more than that, it's pretty disturbing when the full power of the federal Government/IRS is brought to bear on one side and not the other. There are thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of 'left-wing' orgs, we know they are formed and used and discarded just like boiler room stock scammers. Michael Shellenberger himself had quite a list, including Apollo Alliance, "The Rose Foundation," "The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders," "As You Sow Foundation" - No small potatoes there.

◼ Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner. - AP

Ken Miller has lost it

No Photoshopping necessary, bugs. THIS is how its done.

◼  Ahoy for now
As commodore, I felt compelled both to welcome my shipmates to the War-finger and to clarify certain high level policies my inferiors are not privy (sic) to.

Like Wikileaks, the FEIS is filled with embarrassing facts my subordinates cannot discuss (besides, leaks is a Navy no-no).... it gets better...

Has anyone been able to read this all the way through? WTF is he saying? Can you decipher it?

No matter how you've tried to hide it

”His positions are extreme,” Bird said, “he is a divisive force in this county.”

◼ Coastal turmoil: Cities won't nominate (Mark) Lovelace for coastal commissioner seat

They're ba-a-a-ck

◼ Humboldt Watershed Council
◼ HUMBOLDT WATERSHED COUNCIL: The website
Working in tandem.

Crackpots and scams

Do we have more per capita than anywhere on earth?

☛TS Community currency gaining visibility

With the continuously bleak predictions for our nation's economy, a group of local consumers is urging the community to invest in itself through paper currency that can only be used in Humboldt County.

The Humboldt Exchange Community Currency Project, a volunteer-run group promoting the use of community currency in exchange for local services, produces the colorful bills, featuring local images created by local artists.

”The overall idea is not to displace U.S. currency, just to offer an alternative currency to meet people's needs,” said Jon Zaglin, the project's business outreach coordinator....

But can you pay for your pancake breakfast with it?

From the ☛ TS comments: TomTom Pssstttt...wanna buy the plates for making this Humboldt Home Grown fake money. All you need is a color printer and some Hemp toilet paper...

Let's get it straight - "The Humboldt Exchange Community Currency Project" is "Democracy Unlimited" (DUHC) is David Cobb Is Kaitlin Sopoci Belknap is _________ is ______________ is ______________ is ______________ - how many group names do these guys have anyways?

And how much did they pull in in the Measure T scam? Where's that check to reimburse the County for its REAL expenses that they were collecting money for?

Here's a question

the big money Foundations get their money from Corporations.

If your group is funded by those big Foundations, you are supported by (laundered) Corporate money.

Right?

Who paid?

Remember Bob Martel, who said his suit against Palco cost him $250,000 and took five years of research?

When he lost, The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000. And he said he hadn't earned "more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory"

And you wonder - who paid those bills? Who paid the $250,000 that he couldn't possibly have afforded? Plus the more than $110,000. Has he been making monthly payments all this time?

Well, here's another one - This June 4, 1993 article in the New York Times says that Bill Bertain who spends most of his time and much of his money on the legal battle with Mr. Hurwitz was "more than a half-million dollars in debt. At times he has been unable to meet his house payments, and his health has deterioriated."

Bill, did you have to absorb those costs yourself? Or was there help and support? And if so from whom? From what entity(ies)?

That was 1993. How much longer did that battle go on, and what was the total cost? Again, how did you pay for it? I mean it's fair to say that it could have gone on for another 10 years, up until Gallegos took over.

How many lawsuits were there? Yours. Martel's. EPIC's, I've heard tell of some smaller ones with some interesting connections. Hundreds? Thousands? And who paid?

When the history of what happened here is told, will these questions be answered?

The second part

of The Redheaded Blackbelt's interview with Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman - Allman’s Plans: Part ll of an Interview with the Mendocino County Sheriff - another good read.

And, coincidentally, Kym breaks diesel spill story. ...a large diesel spill has occurred on Hacker Creek, tributary of Salmon Creek. ...KMUD is saying that the Dept. of Environmental Health is deeply concerned about the spill and wants Salmon Creek land owners to pull all water lines below the Hacker Creek confluence... the Humboldt Co. Sheriff’s Dept. that the source of the spill was a generator powering a dismantled indoor grow and they are now seeking a search warrant for the place.

The TS also has it. Diesel spill fouls SoHum creek, neighbors advised to withdraw water line

NO OUTRAGED posts for this spill. Pot grow, no Palco to blame, no fanfare. Not like this one. No comments like this one - We can expect to see a whole lot more wreckage such as this if the Arkley/Maxxam/Barnum developers get their way and turn Humboldt into Redding West. It’s time to turn them back, soundly, or all of our creeks and streams will permanently reek of diesel, the fish will go away forever, and our citizenry will be impoverished both economically and spiritually.

Uh huh.

End run?

Let me guess - they're pushing for Plan A.

Action Alert: "Healthy Humboldt" (aka Humboldt Watershed Council's project) Meetings With County Supervisors

"Democracy Unlimited DUHC" and the "Healthy Humboldt Coalition" (aka Humboldt Watershed Council's project) are organizing meetings with County Supervisors Jimmy Smith and Bonnie Neely for our constituents to engage their representatives regarding the General Plan Update.

Bonnie Neely ˆ 6:00pm Wednesday, May 14 (District 4)
Jimmy Smith ˆ 6:00pm Wednesday, May 21 (District 1)

Well, no point in meeting with Woolley, I guess, "Healthy Humboldt" hopes to soon be sitting in his chair.

How are you going to do that, Estelle?

Candidate Estelle Fennell issued a statement this week alleging that Supervisor Roger Rodoni has watched a job loss “epidemic” during his time in office.... Fennell stated that it is clear to her that the Second District has suffered more than others when it comes to overall timber job losses, which she said she would change if elected.

How are you going to do that, Estelle?

Are you in a position to call off the dogs? Bring back all the mills? All the trucking companies? Timber Yes. Fraud NO. is a nice bumper sticker. It won't fix what has happened here.

Maybe if you could go back in time you could solve the Headwaters deal, stop Earth First! Stop the lawsuits. Stop the Park Expansion. Save the Mills, at least a few.

Too bad you can't. 'Cause then there would be no Ken Miller, no Humboldt Watershed Council shams. No Richard Salzman. No Paul Gallegos. All your buds. They haven't shown that they can fix anything.

SoHum Parlance: Ed Denson's questions for Estelle (or anyone else)

Somebody didn't get the memo...

Uhhh, Larry Evans and Mark Lovelace don't have, repeat, DON'T HAVE a plan

But the slick mailer arrived in mailboxes yesterday is designed to bamboozle the public and set the stage for an Al Gore-like squeal about the public's will being denied in order to continue the attacks on whichever of the entities who DO have plans in front of the bankruptcy court, Hurwitz or no Hurwitz. The villain will just change faces. That's one way to look at this.

The other is that Lovelace/Miller/Evans/et al continue trying to find a backdoor way to acquire Palco lands. Mark didn't put in all that time working on the Community Forest for nothing. He knew the endgame was coming, and that was just on-the-job-training. And this is a nice little political plug just at a time when - surprise, surprise - Mark is running for Supervisor. Or is it President of the Send Us Your Money Coalition?

What's more - The Governor of California and Congressman Thompson have come out in support of Mendocino Redwood plan - in fact, it looks like everyone is supporting the Mendocino Redwood Plan.

Even EPIC cares more about the employees of Pacific Lumber than Lovelace does. despite his crocodile tears some months ago.

The Eureka Reporter's coverage: Schwarzenegger backs MRC plan for PALCO reorganization (TS is in the link above)

The Mirror has it along with some interesting tidbits - like the GreatRedwood website was registered a few days before the mailer came out - on April Fool's day, no less.

If ever you needed proof of the organizational shell game these guys play, and how it is the same little group of players, this is a very clear example.

What's this?

From the ludicrous Cobbpiece in the Times Standard today come this one interesting tidbit... If you would like more information, or want some help learning how you can help protect your community, contact Jon Zaglin of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition...

Well that would explain Mark's speaking as an "individual" this week.

Meanwhile, the Humboldt Watershed Council's blog is embracing Lovelace's givemesomemoneypleasegranteze-speak.

And... Ahhh, the joys of Google: [DUHC Announce] News & Events - Personnel Changes at Democracy ...
...But in a well-timed twist of fate, Jon Zaglin came to Humboldt as an intern for DUHC right as Hannah was getting ready to go. The fit felt right for more than just the internship so within a week Jon agreed to join our Steering Committee. 10/10/07 He's Cobb's intern?

He was getting room and board? Right? *Call for interns! We have so much going on that we've decided to offer summer and fall internships to students from outside the area who want to learn all about community organizing. We'll offer valuable tools and knowledge to a new community organizer. The internship includes room and board. Know someone who would be interested? Send them our way!... And thanks to Maggy and Charlie Herbelin for hosting one of our fall interns. If you would be interested in hosting a DUHC intern for a 3 month stint, please do be in touch.

They had to beg for housing for one of their interns - Can you help Democracy Unlimited by donating a room in your house for Jon (Beslow) to live in?

Our interns are paid a $500 stipend for their three months here so unfortunately Jon will not be able to pay you rent, and he will need to share food with you and your household. We've dug deep and determined that given the last minute circumstance, and the real value that we think Jon will bring to our organization and our community, we can offer his host family $100/month for September, October and November to help pay for food or other costs if this is needed. This was not originally budgeted, and not something we were able to provide to our summer intern host.

Not sure what to make of it

But today, in a discussion about the County General Plan at the Board of Supervisor's meeting, Mark Lovelace stood up to speak, and announced himself as "Mark Lovelace, speaking as an individual."

Not as "Humboldt Watershed Council." Not as "Healthy Humboldt."

So, what's changed?

Samples

"Samples are taken regularly during storms and measured in a portable turbidity monitor, and the filtered sediment is weighed in our Sunnybrae sediment lab." That would be Ken Miller "Salmon Forever" (a 501(c)(3) btw) who claims in 2000 "We also serve as a scientific consultant to Voices of Humboldt County, a monthly publication of the Humboldt Watershed Council. The publication’s name comes from a video Salmon Forever and Humboldt Watershed Council co-produced in 1997." Co-produced? CO-PRODUCED? Let me get this straight, Ken Miller's "Salmon Forever" serves as a consultant for Ken Miller's "Humboldt Watershed Council" and he co-produced a video with - himself? It must be a coalition.

A January 21, 2003 press release from
Michael Shellenberger, Salmon Forever, 510-525-9900
Ken Miller, Humboldt Watershed Council, 707-839-7444
Jesse Noell, Salmon Forever, 707-443-7433
Cynthia Elkins, EPIC, 707-923-2931
is titled: Groups Demand Water Board Curtail Excessive Logging
Independent Scientific Panel Says Pacific Lumber Logging Will Prevent Recovery of Five North Coast Watersheds

Ken Miller recently opined, in a My Word in the Times Standard, that The court's decision in the Pacific Lumber case crystallizes a frightening expansion of the “right to lie,” so that the successful cheater (as opposed to one who is caught during the proceeding) is immune from any legal consequences for lying in most government proceedings. The rationale is that the protection of free speech, and finality in permitting processes, are worth the damages resulting from undetected deception.

How does the 'right to lie' argument apply to Ken Miller's own activities? To Humboldt Watershed Council's activities? To that "project" of Humboldt Watershed Council, "Healthy Humboldt Coalition?"

501(c)(3) questions

A 501(c)(3) is not allowed to be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. So, if a 501(c)(3) takes in grant money as one group, then calls itself another group name, and funnels the money to themselves as that group which does actively attempt to influence legislation as its prime directive, is that legal? Or is it money-laundering and cheating the system?

Or in other words if "Humboldt Watershed Council" is a 501(c)(3) that takes in $125,000 (or $325,000), and then Mark Lovelace, the "President" of "Humboldt Watershed Council" sets up a new group, (a "project"), and uses the money to pay himself, Mark Lovelace, acting as the second group, actively working to, and acting solely to, affect and influence legislation, is that legal?

He submits his own plans for the Gounty General Plan for God's sake: Healthy Humboldt Letter to Board of Supervisors
"...it seems prudent to investigate further the possibilities of a truly city-centered plan, as proposed by the Healthy Humboldt Coalition..." and he also came up with his own plan to deal with the TPZ/Palco issue(s).

Tax Information for Charitable Organizations
Exemption Requirements
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Political and Lobbying Activities

Measuring Lobbying Activity: Substantial Part Test
...Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, a religious organization is subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of its lobbying expenditures for the year in which it ceases to qualify for exemption.

Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.

Related:
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation
Lovelace's funding
NCJ This week's Town Dandy

Resources Legacy Fund Foundation

According to their site, it looks like Resources Legacy Fund gave $200,000 to Humboldt Watershed Council in 2004. pg 18 of that file

And another $125,000 in 2005

Link to Guidestar report on Resources Legacy Fund Foundation
Link to Resources Legacy Fund Foundation homepage
Link to Audited Financial Statements
Consolidated Resources Legacy Fund and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation:

• 2007 & 2006
• 2006 & 2005
• 2005 & 2004

Form 990
As public charities, Resources Legacy Fund (RLF) and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF) each file a Form 990 annually with the Internal Revenue Service.
The Form 990 provides detailed financial data, including a list of grants awarded.
To review our recent Form 990s, click on one of the links below:

• 2006 RLF 990
• 2006 RLFF 990
• 2005 RLF 990
• 2005 RLFF 990
• 2004 RLF 990
• 2004 RLFF 990

ActivistCash has some info on Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Now remember, the Miller/Lovelace crowd wanted you to vote for Measure T banning outside CORPORATIONS from donating money locally - look at the BIG money here, and this was just 2002...
Finances for tax year ending 12/31/2002
Total Assets $8,534,738.00
Grants Awarded $0.00
Top Grants Made
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated
Natural Resources Defense Council $500,000.00
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $263,638.00
Learn more about what the term "project" means in the Tides Center link. - Among other things -

Many environmental groups that now operate on their own got their start as a “project” of the Tides Center. These include the Environmental Working Group, Environmental Media Services, and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- which was itself founded with a sizable Tides “grant.” The Tides Center began with a seemingly innocent transfer of $9 million from the Tides Foundation. The Center immediately took over the operations of nearly all of the Tides “projects,” and undertook the task of “incubating” dozens more. There are currently over 350 such projects, and the number grows each year.

This practice of “incubation” allows Tides to provide traditional foundations with a unique service. If an existing funder wants to pour money into a specific agenda for which no activist group exists, Tides will start one from scratch. At least 30 of the Tides Center’s current “projects” were created out of thin air in response to the needs of one foundation or another.

So they donate TO Tides and NRDC, not get money FROM them... and they gave to "Humboldt Watershed Council." They spent alot on consultants and lobbying... Looks like nothing for HWC in 2006 from that particular grantmaker....


HWC 2004 Form 990 Shows $33, 925 in total revenue. $6,573 in in Net Assets or Fund Balances at the Beginning of the Year
Shows no transfers of funds.
Checks N/A to this question - During the year, has the organization attempted to influence national, state, or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum? If "Yes," enter the total expenses paid.
Checks 11a as a Reason for Non-Private Foundation Status - 11a is An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (Also complete the Support Schedule in Part IV-!)

Humboldt Watershed Council Forms 990 from the IRS:

• 2006 Form 990
• 2005 Form 990
• 2004 Form 990

In it's Federal Form filings, HWC lists as an accomplishment - Obtaining a grant for $200,000 to assist the City of Arcata in its purchase of the Bayview Ranch, which will be preserved for open space, recreation, and wildlife and watershed protection. pg 10 of that pdf file.

The funding for that project shows up on a Coastal Conservancy report/staff recommendation but no Humboldt Watershed Council:

ESTIMATED PROJECT FINANCING:
Coastal Conservancy $750,000
Wildlife Conservation Board 500,000
California Waterfowl Association 185,000
City of Arcata/Jacoby Creek Land Trust 65,000
Total Project Cost $1,500,000

Your search - "Bayview Ranch" Arcata "Humboldt Watershed Council" - did not match any documents.

There IS NO GUIDESTAR listing for "Healthy Humboldt."

Note: this was a "developing" thread, and the information evolved as new facts came in, the comments below follow that same path of discovery, from hey, what's this, to, ok, here's more...

Related: Lovelace's funding
NCJ This week's Town Dandy

Lovelace's funding

Excerpted from - this week's Town Dandy

Here in Humboldt County, bringing up the question of someone's personal finances is always awkward. But that shouldn't be the case when it comes to elected officials, or those who otherwise serve or seek to serve the public as policymakers. There are laws on the books - most notably the California Political Reform Act - that require a degree of openness. These are good laws. Locally, no one has taken more notice of them than Mark Lovelace, who as head of the Humboldt Watershed Council has filed complaints against two Humboldt County officials relating to their business interests with the Pacific Lumber Co. Planning Commissioner Chair Tom Herman and Fortuna Mayor John Campbell. The Fair Political Practices Commission has agreed to investigate both cases.

But what of Lovelace himself? How does he make a living? Now that he is standing for office the question is fair. For years there have been rumors that the non-profit organization for which he works is funded wholly or in large part by a single wealthy individual who is associated with any number of left-wing causes in Humboldt County.

Shouldn't Lovelace have to disclose that?

We won't name the individual because it turns out that the rumors in question are demonstrably false. The Humboldt Watershed Council files tax returns every year. Because it is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation those returns are public. Here's what they show.

The organization took in little money between 2000 and 2004. Donations ranged between $10,000 and $50,000 annually, with most years at the lower end of the scale. Then in 2005, it took in a massive donation, relatively speaking $121,000. The large surplus of funds allowed the Council to spend a great deal the next year, while the fight over the county general plan was raging particularly hot. The money was directed to the "Healthy Humboldt Coalition," a project of the Watershed Council, the Northcoast Environmental Center and the Sierra Club that advocates for "smart growth" style land use planning.

Where did that very large contribution come from? A call to Lovelace got the answer, and another trip to a database containing the IRS returns of nonprofit organizations confirmed it. The money was a grant from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a Sacramento based charitable organization dedicated to conservation. The foundation awarded the Watershed Council $125,000 as part of its "Preserving Wild California Program" - "a five year, $150 million effort to protect wild lands and rivers across the state," according to its website.

Lovelace himself has drawn a relatively small salary from the Counci: $34,000 in 2006. "The salary would be more if the position had been fully funded, but I was paid for about three quarters of the scheduled time and probably worked time and half," he said Monday.

That supposed sugar daddy? Lovelace said he had indeed given money to the Watershed Council from time to time, just as many community members have, but the biggest part of the Council's budget has come from charitable grants.

As his economic disclosure statements to the County showed, Lovelace made a bit of money from his consulting business in 2007, but he largely gave that up in favor of advocacy work around the issues of forestry and land use planning, which "seemed so much more important and pressing."

"This is the stuff that intrigued me and sucked up my time," he said, "if I'd put more time into that consulting - there's good money when it's there, but i was drawn to other things." read the rest

M'Kay, does that answer all your questions? Not mine. But it's good reporting.

Got questions? Let's make a LIST - submit via comments or email (in the sidebar)

Ken Miller

Salmon Forever?
Humboldt Watershed Council?
Mark Lovelace?
Healthy Humboldt?
Rumpelstiltskin?
Ken Miller.

photo source

Ken Miller isn't done with Palco yet.

Talk about an obsessive personality! Here's Ken's latest...

Real value of DA's suit vs. Palco yet to come?
Ken Miller Opinion in The Times-Standard

Your editorial of Jan. 25, “An end to the saga,” criticizes Mr. Gallegos instead of the court's decision, or Maxxam.

It is ironic that the Times-Standard blames Mr. Gallegos for an “ill-thought-out attack on Humboldt County's historical way of life, and on one of the county's main economic engines.” Isn't it Hurwitz who is attacking? After all, the Headwaters Deal secured for Hurwitz a billion-dollar refinance that our watersheds could not afford, with bankruptcy of that venerable “engine” -- and our watersheds -- as the predicted results.

Does anyone doubt Pacific Lumber committed fraud? How else do you so deplete such a rich resource so rapidly, and wreak so much social, economic and environmental havoc, and get away with it?

The court's decision in the Pacific Lumber case crystallizes a frightening expansion of the “right to lie,” so that the successful cheater (as opposed to one who is caught during the proceeding) is immune from any legal consequences for lying in most government proceedings. The rationale is that the protection of free speech, and finality in permitting processes, are worth the damages resulting from undetected deception.

Responsible government agency personnel, already stretched beyond their limits, rely upon compliance with laws that deter, not encourage fraud.

PL is now trying to use the court's decision to stop the Water Board from regulating them. The court concluded that if any part of the state government agreed to the deal, all parts are presumed to have agreed, and therefore must defend it -- including the Water Board, which disagreed, and has been trying unsuccessfully to make PL do something about the nuisance flooding in Freshwater and Elk River.

Analogously, the court determined that as part of the government, the DA -- who never participated in any part of the Headwaters proceedings -- was obligated to have discovered the alleged fraud and to have acted during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or forever defend, not attack, the deal. The implications of this are alarming, especially if fraud is involved.

It is also disturbing that the court's determination -- that PL's lobbying efforts, not the alleged fraud, resulted in the company's success in obtaining a sustained yield plan (SYP) with harvest volumes that finally finished off the company and our watersheds -- was based on fundamental misunderstandings of fact by the judges that could have been avoided in a fair trial.

PL allegedly hid significant new information that proved that their proposed SYP harvest rates would violate water laws, in order to avoid having to recirculate the DEIR, thereby allegedly depriving the public of a legitimate process.

PL had the information over six weeks prior to submitting it, according to the consultant who analyzed the actual data. When PL did turn it in, to officials uninvolved in the process, it was too late to influence the DEIR, which was therefore based on incorrect landslide data. The court did not understand the significance of this.

Recirculation would have meant that all the scientists, agencies, affected residents and interested public weighing in on PL's harvests rates, methods, and proposed mitigations, would have had powerful, irrefutable evidence from PL's own surveys and consultants that PL's proposed logging plans in the SYP were unsustainable and unlawful.

The Mutual Defense Pact (MDP) of the Headwaters Agreement bound the resource agencies to defend the agreement instead of the people, so our government personnel collaborated with PL to avoid the time-consuming recirculation, and keep the March 1 deadline.

Although the political momentum for a Headwaters deal was enormous, PL's lobbying efforts allegedly would have been thwarted by a reanalyzed EIR containing the “corrected” landslide conclusions from Jordan Creek, according to then California Department of Forestry (CDF) chief Richard Wilson.

Soon after the deal was signed, Jim Branham, a key figure in the Headwaters Deal for the California Resources Agency, and Craig Anthony from CDF, joined the PL team, both from lead agencies for the state in the EIR process.

The Appellate Court misconstrued the agencies' roles as independent and unconflicted; but in compliance with the MDP, these agencies have defended PL from the opposition of their critics, including affected watershed residents and others, agency personnel and the DA.

The real value of the suit, and of Mr. Gallegos' foresight in clarifying the damaging consequences of this immunity to our watersheds and workforce, will be if the Legislature makes a “successful” cheater liable, not immune, allowing government to protect us effectively. The court's decision included that advice from the state Supreme Court.

Ken Miller lives in McKinleyville. Oh, let's toot your horn just a little bit more, Ken - Pot Doc Ken Miller writes alot of 215 presecriptions, and he helped write the DA's lawsuit and is very unhappy that it got thrown out of court three times. Ken Miller is a founding member of BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), he has several Palco attack groups including "Salmon Forever" and "Humboldt Watershed Council" (note, you should read that Palco Watershed Council). He and his buddies have been suing Palco since the earth was born, and he can't just let this one go. But the worst thing now would be if he is successful in his now apparent bid to OWN the Palco lands. And that is his ultimate goal, recently revealed by his (Humboldt Watershed Council) employee, Mark Lovelace.

ANOTHER new group

with the same face. How many does that make now?

Hank reports - "a new organization called the “Community Forestry Team.” The group includes longtime forestry activists Mark Lovelace and David Simpson as contacts — could it be that the Community Forestry Team is an outgrowth of the so-called Timber Acquisition Group, which had hoped to make a “community forestry”-based bid for Pacific Lumber lands? It was."

Ken Miller's end game. The reason why Mark Lovelace was willing to risk it all over the TPZ thing. The reason he speaks of Pacific Lumber as if it is his own. In his mind it is.

So how do you send a message to that bankruptcy judge anyway?

Because there is no way in hell that Ken Miller's Lovelace/"Humboldt Watershed Council/any other name they make up should get their grubby paws on any timber land. Not after everything they have done. There should be no reward for their astounding dishonesty.

Let the company go to any other bidder. Not this one.