Yes, most orgs use children to prove their non-profit bona-fides. They conduct 'educational' activities, you see. And it will be detailed in their filings.
They don't tell you that they're using you. Just like they didn't tell anyone they were getting a significant sum per child per man hour for pulling the accursed grass.
Kids thought they were getting a field trip to the beach, then found out they were there to do the work adults didn't want to do. And someone kept the money. None went to the schools, did it? None went to the kids, did it?
It's been going on for years. And the adults leave feeling so fulfilled. Look at all the good they've done.
Showing posts with label Foundation Grant Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foundation Grant Money. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Monday, December 16, 2013
Yes, Jason Singleton should rot in hell...
BUT.
He is no different than Baykeeper. EPIC. ERF, and ALL of the other predatory litigious orgs.
In fact, he MIGHT be slightly more honorable than they if you believe he, at least, does it on his own, without giant Foundation grant money.
But when it comes to being a despicable shakedown artist, making it rich using arcane bits of law, walking away with his 'go away' extortion money and breaking local business - there's no difference except for the fact that you like his targets and you've come to believe the org's targets deserve it.
...Funny, the Facebook discussions say 'something is being done about this" - which is laughable, because this has been going on for years, Clint Eastwood even testified before Congress detailing the abuses many, many, many years ago. But who dares stop these people? To do so implies you don't care about people with disabilities (not true), or the environment (not true), and on and on. These new-age con men have a license to steal, and they do so with abandon. They've learned how to milk the system, hijacking, bastardizing and twisting well-meaning laws to enrich themselves.
◼ Jason Singleton Strikes Again (5/8/08) - The Journal
◼ And again: ADA Beef Closes Barbecue Restaurant. Another Humboldt business has fallen victim to notorious attorney Jason Singleton’s lawsuit scheme, this time Arcata’s Porter Street Barbeque. - Mad River Union
◼ Piling On Jason Singleton - Andrew Goff/Lost Coast Outpost
He is no different than Baykeeper. EPIC. ERF, and ALL of the other predatory litigious orgs.
In fact, he MIGHT be slightly more honorable than they if you believe he, at least, does it on his own, without giant Foundation grant money.
But when it comes to being a despicable shakedown artist, making it rich using arcane bits of law, walking away with his 'go away' extortion money and breaking local business - there's no difference except for the fact that you like his targets and you've come to believe the org's targets deserve it.
...Funny, the Facebook discussions say 'something is being done about this" - which is laughable, because this has been going on for years, Clint Eastwood even testified before Congress detailing the abuses many, many, many years ago. But who dares stop these people? To do so implies you don't care about people with disabilities (not true), or the environment (not true), and on and on. These new-age con men have a license to steal, and they do so with abandon. They've learned how to milk the system, hijacking, bastardizing and twisting well-meaning laws to enrich themselves.
◼ Jason Singleton Strikes Again (5/8/08) - The Journal
◼ And again: ADA Beef Closes Barbecue Restaurant. Another Humboldt business has fallen victim to notorious attorney Jason Singleton’s lawsuit scheme, this time Arcata’s Porter Street Barbeque. - Mad River Union
◼ Piling On Jason Singleton - Andrew Goff/Lost Coast Outpost
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
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
◼ Coastal turmoil: Cities won't nominate (Mark) Lovelace for coastal commissioner seat
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor?
It's good to see this topic FINALLY get some press. The predatory litigious orgs, the phony groups with Orwellian names, spawning new attack "projects," operating under the pretense of being a "grassroots" citizen effort when they are really extortion machines made up of teams of lawyers (Ecological Rights Foundation bragged that it has 17 lawyers on staff.) First reported here, and finally being recognized for what they are.
Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor? (not online)
Last week the board of harbor commissioners voted to proceed with the Humboldt Bay harbor plan developed by its consultants. This would begin with a modest break-bulk and short sea-haul terminal that also could accommodate occasional cruise ship stops. Later, if and when railroad service is available, the facility would expand to a container port. All of this would represent a boon of varying proportions to Humboldt County's economy.
We say "would" because there exists the possibility that one of a group of litigious no-growth lawyers may try to sue to stop harbor development. The Ecological Rights Foundation, its Baykeepers subsidiary, the Mateel Environmental Justice Center and the California Alternatives to Toxics make up a sort of federation. All have been plaintiffs in suits whose ostensible purpose has been to abate environmental pollution. On examining the cases, however, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that all of them have two objectives: 1.) getting settlements for large sums of money (which can fund additional legal attacks) and 2.) thwarting economic development. It adds up to killing jobs in Humboldt County's fragile economy.
The most recent example is the suit brought by Baykeepers/Ecological Rights Foundation against the past and present owners of Eureka's Balloon Track-- Union Pacific Railroad and CUE VI, respectively, and the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA)-- on the grounds that polluted water is emanating from the property into the bay. The property is already under a clean-up and abatement order, with which the owners are complying. One wonders, therefore, whether the real purpose of the suit is to discourage the owners from completing efforts to build the Marina Center.
The Ecological Rights Foundation and its confederates have a record of going after companies with deep pockets, and have charged them with having contaminated various sites. Among these have been Simpson, Sierra Pacific and Evergreen Pulp. Baykeepers, for its part, has consistently opposed any activity on the bay that would create new jobs and stimulate economic activity. They have opposed potential rail development, dredging of shipping lanes and the hiring by the harbor district of an experienced port expert to help it find users for a new port.
A modern harbor facility, developed with care in two stages as conditions warrant, is the one sure way Humboldt county can create a source of meaningful new jobs. This, is turn, can lead to increased family formations by yong people, home purchases, a reversal of the declining school population, improved retail sales and thsu the revenues that sustain our cities. Why, then, don't the lawsuit-happy lawyers of these supposed "environmental" groups stop attempting to prevent port development? The only answer we can think of is they desire a shrinking economy.
The Eureka Reporter Opinion page of the Times-Standard - Sunday, November 23, 2008
Peter Hannaford Editorial Page Editor
Related:
"Baykeeper" - LawsuitsRus
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
How much do they want?
In case you missed it...
Do as I say, not as I do
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION (ERF)'S HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PROJECT...
Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor? (not online)
Last week the board of harbor commissioners voted to proceed with the Humboldt Bay harbor plan developed by its consultants. This would begin with a modest break-bulk and short sea-haul terminal that also could accommodate occasional cruise ship stops. Later, if and when railroad service is available, the facility would expand to a container port. All of this would represent a boon of varying proportions to Humboldt County's economy.
We say "would" because there exists the possibility that one of a group of litigious no-growth lawyers may try to sue to stop harbor development. The Ecological Rights Foundation, its Baykeepers subsidiary, the Mateel Environmental Justice Center and the California Alternatives to Toxics make up a sort of federation. All have been plaintiffs in suits whose ostensible purpose has been to abate environmental pollution. On examining the cases, however, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that all of them have two objectives: 1.) getting settlements for large sums of money (which can fund additional legal attacks) and 2.) thwarting economic development. It adds up to killing jobs in Humboldt County's fragile economy.
The most recent example is the suit brought by Baykeepers/Ecological Rights Foundation against the past and present owners of Eureka's Balloon Track-- Union Pacific Railroad and CUE VI, respectively, and the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA)-- on the grounds that polluted water is emanating from the property into the bay. The property is already under a clean-up and abatement order, with which the owners are complying. One wonders, therefore, whether the real purpose of the suit is to discourage the owners from completing efforts to build the Marina Center.
The Ecological Rights Foundation and its confederates have a record of going after companies with deep pockets, and have charged them with having contaminated various sites. Among these have been Simpson, Sierra Pacific and Evergreen Pulp. Baykeepers, for its part, has consistently opposed any activity on the bay that would create new jobs and stimulate economic activity. They have opposed potential rail development, dredging of shipping lanes and the hiring by the harbor district of an experienced port expert to help it find users for a new port.
A modern harbor facility, developed with care in two stages as conditions warrant, is the one sure way Humboldt county can create a source of meaningful new jobs. This, is turn, can lead to increased family formations by yong people, home purchases, a reversal of the declining school population, improved retail sales and thsu the revenues that sustain our cities. Why, then, don't the lawsuit-happy lawyers of these supposed "environmental" groups stop attempting to prevent port development? The only answer we can think of is they desire a shrinking economy.
The Eureka Reporter Opinion page of the Times-Standard - Sunday, November 23, 2008
Peter Hannaford Editorial Page Editor
Related:
"Baykeeper" - LawsuitsRus
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
How much do they want?
In case you missed it...
Do as I say, not as I do
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION (ERF)'S HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PROJECT...
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Another "Tides Center Project"
And further proof that the NorthCoast Environmental Center has access to millions of dollars and does not need your donations... It's also another indication of the incestuous nature of alot of these "groups" - and of the very small pool of people involved, really.
Smith River Project Staff and Associates
Project Staff
Greg King, founder and Executive Director of Smith River "Project"/Darryl Cherney's CO-Earth Firster/now the new Tim McKay/NEC
Ken Miller, Smith River Project North Coast representative/Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility/Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters Forest (BACH)/"Humboldt Watershed Council"/pre-eminent 215 Doc/pot stirrer
Project Associates
Cynthia Elkins, Program Director, Environmental Protection Information Center/Special Projects Associate for the Center for Biological Diversity/ASJE
Britt Bailey and Dr. Marc Lappé, Center for Ethics and Toxics
Jennifer Kalt, EPIC/Resource Protection Associate,/California Indian Basketweavers Association/Native Plant Society/Baykeeper/TPZ "expert"
• "Friends of Del Norte Norte"
The interesting name that (re)surfaces here is yet another "Tides Center Project," Dr. Marc Lappé, Center for Ethics and Toxics... who, if you remember, conducted a "...toxicological study that found elevated levels of dioxin in mussels and crabs immediately adjacent to the Sierra Pacific mill. The study...was commissioned by the Ecological Rights Foundation, a Garberville-based environmental group that (was) suing Sierra Pacific for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. In addition to looking at shellfish near the mill, the study also collected and tested shellfish in Hookton Slough... The study, done by toxicologist Marc Lappe of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif...y." source..."
"ERF: is the predatory litigious parent of the equally predatory "Humboldt Baykeeper."
According to activistcash.com "...With dozens of wealthy foundations bankrolling radical activist groups, a good deal of public philanthropy has become a shell game. The money flows freely, largely undetected, thanks to Tides’ innovative funding vehicles. The many groups that Tides “incubates” (and which operate under Tides’ umbrella) are smart, fierce, and built to last -- their targets in industry are just now beginning to learn the size of this organized opposition and its institutional bankroll..."
Baykeeper/Ecological Rights Foundation (ERF)/Center for Ethics and Toxics CETOS), a project of the Tides Center
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
It's quite a racket these guys have goin'.
Smith River Project Staff and Associates
Project Staff
Greg King, founder and Executive Director of Smith River "Project"/Darryl Cherney's CO-Earth Firster/now the new Tim McKay/NEC
Ken Miller, Smith River Project North Coast representative/Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility/Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters Forest (BACH)/"Humboldt Watershed Council"/pre-eminent 215 Doc/pot stirrer
Project Associates
Cynthia Elkins, Program Director, Environmental Protection Information Center/Special Projects Associate for the Center for Biological Diversity/ASJE
Britt Bailey and Dr. Marc Lappé, Center for Ethics and Toxics
Jennifer Kalt, EPIC/Resource Protection Associate,/California Indian Basketweavers Association/Native Plant Society/Baykeeper/TPZ "expert"
• "Friends of Del Norte Norte"
The interesting name that (re)surfaces here is yet another "Tides Center Project," Dr. Marc Lappé, Center for Ethics and Toxics... who, if you remember, conducted a "...toxicological study that found elevated levels of dioxin in mussels and crabs immediately adjacent to the Sierra Pacific mill. The study...was commissioned by the Ecological Rights Foundation, a Garberville-based environmental group that (was) suing Sierra Pacific for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. In addition to looking at shellfish near the mill, the study also collected and tested shellfish in Hookton Slough... The study, done by toxicologist Marc Lappe of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif...y." source..."
"ERF: is the predatory litigious parent of the equally predatory "Humboldt Baykeeper."
According to activistcash.com "...With dozens of wealthy foundations bankrolling radical activist groups, a good deal of public philanthropy has become a shell game. The money flows freely, largely undetected, thanks to Tides’ innovative funding vehicles. The many groups that Tides “incubates” (and which operate under Tides’ umbrella) are smart, fierce, and built to last -- their targets in industry are just now beginning to learn the size of this organized opposition and its institutional bankroll..."
Baykeeper/Ecological Rights Foundation (ERF)/Center for Ethics and Toxics CETOS), a project of the Tides Center
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
It's quite a racket these guys have goin'.
Monday, October 08, 2007
"Projects" Out in the Open
EF! works very hard to convince the public that its activities are not governed by any formal institution. "Earth First! is not an organization, but a movement" is the constant refrain. "There are no members of Earth First!, only Earth First!ers."
There are practical as well as romantic reasons to downplay any organizational structure. According to the Earth First! Journal: "To avoid co-option, we feel it is necessary to avoid the corporate organizational structure so readily embraced by many environmental groups." Of course, most green groups engage in legal activities -- and therefore don't fear "co-option."
While there is no primary EF! office, there are numerous incorporated Earth First! organizations, each with its own specific function. These include Daily Planet Publishing (which publishes the Earth First! Journal), the Fund for Wild Nature (formerly the Earth First! Foundation), the Trees Foundation, and the Earth First! Direct Action Fund.
For the benefit of anyone who doubts that these are genuine, legal "organizations," consider that the website of the Fund for Wild Nature once read: "The Fund relies on invididual [sic] contributors like yourself, and your friends. We accept donations of cash, stock or other financial assets." Here is a tax-exempt foundation making a plea for corporate securities, on behalf of a group that claims to exist without any structure. Source: activistcash.com on Earth First!
***
Recnt coverage of the Miller/Shunka/Trees Foundation suit makes the idea of an umbrealla groups sound so benign... (Shunka had) told her (Miller) to make it (the donation) through the Trees Foundation, which handled the NCEF! Media office’s finances through an arrangement that had been established years ago. (The Trees Foundation is an umbrella organization formed in 1991 to assist smaller environmental groups. As a 501(c)3 nonprofit, it can accept large, tax-deductible donations on behalf of affiliates, and provide professional resources. And it can lead large campaigns, like the one to save the Headwaters Forest back in the ’90s.) The Journal - Money On Trees
It is anything but benign. For example, activist cash describes the reality... in this case they are discussing the Tides Foundation, the the 800-pound gorilla of radical activist funding: ...The Tides Foundation and its recent offshoot, the Tides Center, creating a new model for grantmaking -- one that strains the boundaries of U.S. tax law in the pursuit of its leftist, activist goals.
Set up in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.
In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”
In order to get an idea of the massive scale on which the Tides Foundation plays its shell game, consider that Tides has collected over $200 million since 1997, most of it from other foundations. The list of grantees who eventually received these funds includes many of the most notorious anti-consumer groups in U.S. history: Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Media Services, Environmental Working Group, and even fringe groups like the now-defunct Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet (which used actress Meryl Streep to “front” the 1989 Alar-on-apples health scare fraud for NRDC).
For corporations and other organizations that eventually find themselves in these grantees’ crosshairs, there is practically no way to find out where their money originated. For the general public, the money trail ends at Tides’ front door. In many cases, even the eventual recipient of the funding has no idea how Tides got it in the first place...
...Remarkably, all of this appears to be perfectly legal. The IRS has traditionally been friendly toward this “donor-advised” giving model, because in theory it allows people who don’t have millions of dollars to use an existing philanthropy as a “fiscal sponsor.” This allows them to distribute their money to worthwhile charities, while avoiding the overhead expenses of setting up a whole new foundation.
In practice, though, the Tides Foundation has turned this well-meaning idea on its head. When traditional foundations give millions of dollars to Tides, they’re not required to tell the IRS anything about the grants’ eventual purposes. Some document it anyway; most do not. When Tides files its annual tax return, of course, it has to document where its donations went -- but not where they came from...
...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.... Source: activistcash.com on Tides Foundation and Tides Center
"Scott" from the Trees Foundation has been talking about the Miller/Shunka case - and he talks openly about the "projects" - groups that exist under the Trees umbrella. So who are they? And how does "the Trees Foundation" compare to this description?
There are practical as well as romantic reasons to downplay any organizational structure. According to the Earth First! Journal: "To avoid co-option, we feel it is necessary to avoid the corporate organizational structure so readily embraced by many environmental groups." Of course, most green groups engage in legal activities -- and therefore don't fear "co-option."
While there is no primary EF! office, there are numerous incorporated Earth First! organizations, each with its own specific function. These include Daily Planet Publishing (which publishes the Earth First! Journal), the Fund for Wild Nature (formerly the Earth First! Foundation), the Trees Foundation, and the Earth First! Direct Action Fund.
For the benefit of anyone who doubts that these are genuine, legal "organizations," consider that the website of the Fund for Wild Nature once read: "The Fund relies on invididual [sic] contributors like yourself, and your friends. We accept donations of cash, stock or other financial assets." Here is a tax-exempt foundation making a plea for corporate securities, on behalf of a group that claims to exist without any structure. Source: activistcash.com on Earth First!
***
Recnt coverage of the Miller/Shunka/Trees Foundation suit makes the idea of an umbrealla groups sound so benign... (Shunka had) told her (Miller) to make it (the donation) through the Trees Foundation, which handled the NCEF! Media office’s finances through an arrangement that had been established years ago. (The Trees Foundation is an umbrella organization formed in 1991 to assist smaller environmental groups. As a 501(c)3 nonprofit, it can accept large, tax-deductible donations on behalf of affiliates, and provide professional resources. And it can lead large campaigns, like the one to save the Headwaters Forest back in the ’90s.) The Journal - Money On Trees
It is anything but benign. For example, activist cash describes the reality... in this case they are discussing the Tides Foundation, the the 800-pound gorilla of radical activist funding: ...The Tides Foundation and its recent offshoot, the Tides Center, creating a new model for grantmaking -- one that strains the boundaries of U.S. tax law in the pursuit of its leftist, activist goals.
Set up in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.
In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”
In order to get an idea of the massive scale on which the Tides Foundation plays its shell game, consider that Tides has collected over $200 million since 1997, most of it from other foundations. The list of grantees who eventually received these funds includes many of the most notorious anti-consumer groups in U.S. history: Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Media Services, Environmental Working Group, and even fringe groups like the now-defunct Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet (which used actress Meryl Streep to “front” the 1989 Alar-on-apples health scare fraud for NRDC).
For corporations and other organizations that eventually find themselves in these grantees’ crosshairs, there is practically no way to find out where their money originated. For the general public, the money trail ends at Tides’ front door. In many cases, even the eventual recipient of the funding has no idea how Tides got it in the first place...
...Remarkably, all of this appears to be perfectly legal. The IRS has traditionally been friendly toward this “donor-advised” giving model, because in theory it allows people who don’t have millions of dollars to use an existing philanthropy as a “fiscal sponsor.” This allows them to distribute their money to worthwhile charities, while avoiding the overhead expenses of setting up a whole new foundation.
In practice, though, the Tides Foundation has turned this well-meaning idea on its head. When traditional foundations give millions of dollars to Tides, they’re not required to tell the IRS anything about the grants’ eventual purposes. Some document it anyway; most do not. When Tides files its annual tax return, of course, it has to document where its donations went -- but not where they came from...
...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.... Source: activistcash.com on Tides Foundation and Tides Center
"Scott" from the Trees Foundation has been talking about the Miller/Shunka case - and he talks openly about the "projects" - groups that exist under the Trees umbrella. So who are they? And how does "the Trees Foundation" compare to this description?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
BIG MONEY or grassroots?
New York Times Thursday June 7
ACTIVIST Summer jobs
Restore our Constitutional Protection
$5,500 - $8.500/summer
Work for grassroots campaigns on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union
Stop Executive Abuse of Power
full time/career call Sam (212) 219-1502
******************************************
Huh? I don't know about you, but to me, grassroots means VOLUNTEER.
So who is (212) 219-1502?
It's not the ACLU. It's
Grass Roots Campaigns
53 W 36 St
Manhattan, NY 10018
******************************************
There's more:
Grass Roots Campaigns (local advertiser). Employment Placement Agencies, New York, NY 10018. (212) 219-1502 | 53 W 36th Ste 602 New York, NY 10018 ...
New York Office
Address:. 53 West 36 th Street, Suite 602. New York, NY 10018. Phone:. 212-219-1502, Ask for Alex. Email:. nycstreet@grassrootscampaigns.com ...
www.grassrootscampaigns.com/NYoffice.php - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Summer Jobs to Take Back the White House: $5500-$8500/summer
Help put the country back on the right path! Call Steve at 212-219-1502. Compensation: $5500-$8500/summer; Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact ...
newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/npo/342585496.html - Jun 6, 2007 - Similar pages
Summer Jobs to Defend Civil Liberties: $5500-$8500/summer
The ACLU is fighting back against illegal laws allowing warantless wiretapping and torture. Call Stephanie at 212-219-1502 ...
newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/npo/344469819.html - Similar pages
Summer Jobs - Campaign to Help the Democrats Take Back the House ...
Call Rachel at 212-219-1502. How To Apply:. Please contact an office near you, or call our central office at ... Phone:, 212-219-1502. Email:, New York ...
test.summer.ahoy.com/do/details/5597 - 18k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Apply To Take The Police Officer Exam Today! Call 212-RECRUIT. NYPDrecruit.com ... Help the Dems take the White House Call Greg : 212-219-1502 ...
mv.qq212.com/ - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
Help the Dems take the White House Call Greg : 212-219-1502 · www.grassrootscampaigns.com
Grassroots Campaigns is hiring to work with MoveOn.org Political ...
To Apply: Email your resume to Diane: jobs@grassrootscampaigns.com or apply online at: http://www.grassrootscampaigns.com/. Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. runs ...
www.jobsthatareleft.com/?q=node/1110 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Upon receiving your resume you will be contacted with more information about the specifics of the
positions, and opportunities to interview.
seattle@grassrootscampaigns.com, denver@grassrootscampaigns.com, and on and on and on...We will also be on campus Monday December 11th ...
******************************************
So, who is grassrootscampaigns.com?
Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. is a national firm specializing in building grassroots support for progressive causes, political candidates, public interest campaigns, and non-profit organizations.
Winning campaigns in America now means finding new voters, new donors, new bases of support, and building long term movements for political power and political change. Grassroots Campaigns brings together an experienced team of organizers and campaign professionals to provide the progressive community with grassroots fundraising and organizing strategies that can help build a powerful and winning progressive majority in America.
We continue to partner with the DNC to run canvass operations, get more people engaged in the party, raise as much money as possible, and build on the successes of 2006. We’re continuing to work with MoveOn.org Political Action to run Operation Democracy, working with local progressives to make sure that Democrats step up and make changes on key issues.
*****************************************
So, they're a special interest group paying out all this money for pretend "grassroots" people and THEN -
they have the nerve to post this inspirational quote:
“The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power.”
U.S. Senator and grassroots organizer, Paul Wellstone
ACLU? grassrootscampaigns.com? DNC? MoveOn.Org?
Well, lucky for us, they are a CORPORATION, so under Measure T they should be prohibited from funding any local involvement, at least under their real name. How do all the little phony sub orgs (ngos) work under Measure T? Anyone cover that?
But, let's not kid ourselves, these people are really special interest lobbyists, at best, just called by another name. And Salzman? Why he was the one jumping up and down because the Recall Committee paid signature gatherers. They just didn't know how to play the shell game, to hide the money.
ACTIVIST Summer jobs
Restore our Constitutional Protection
$5,500 - $8.500/summer
Work for grassroots campaigns on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union
Stop Executive Abuse of Power
full time/career call Sam (212) 219-1502
******************************************
Huh? I don't know about you, but to me, grassroots means VOLUNTEER.
So who is (212) 219-1502?
It's not the ACLU. It's
Grass Roots Campaigns
53 W 36 St
Manhattan, NY 10018
******************************************
There's more:
Grass Roots Campaigns (local advertiser). Employment Placement Agencies, New York, NY 10018. (212) 219-1502 | 53 W 36th Ste 602 New York, NY 10018 ...
New York Office
Address:. 53 West 36 th Street, Suite 602. New York, NY 10018. Phone:. 212-219-1502, Ask for Alex. Email:. nycstreet@grassrootscampaigns.com ...
www.grassrootscampaigns.com/NYoffice.php - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Summer Jobs to Take Back the White House: $5500-$8500/summer
Help put the country back on the right path! Call Steve at 212-219-1502. Compensation: $5500-$8500/summer; Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact ...
newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/npo/342585496.html - Jun 6, 2007 - Similar pages
Summer Jobs to Defend Civil Liberties: $5500-$8500/summer
The ACLU is fighting back against illegal laws allowing warantless wiretapping and torture. Call Stephanie at 212-219-1502 ...
newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/npo/344469819.html - Similar pages
Summer Jobs - Campaign to Help the Democrats Take Back the House ...
Call Rachel at 212-219-1502. How To Apply:. Please contact an office near you, or call our central office at ... Phone:, 212-219-1502. Email:, New York ...
test.summer.ahoy.com/do/details/5597 - 18k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Apply To Take The Police Officer Exam Today! Call 212-RECRUIT. NYPDrecruit.com ... Help the Dems take the White House Call Greg : 212-219-1502 ...
mv.qq212.com/ - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
Help the Dems take the White House Call Greg : 212-219-1502 · www.grassrootscampaigns.com
Grassroots Campaigns is hiring to work with MoveOn.org Political ...
To Apply: Email your resume to Diane: jobs@grassrootscampaigns.com or apply online at: http://www.grassrootscampaigns.com/. Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. runs ...
www.jobsthatareleft.com/?q=node/1110 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Upon receiving your resume you will be contacted with more information about the specifics of the
positions, and opportunities to interview.
seattle@grassrootscampaigns.com, denver@grassrootscampaigns.com, and on and on and on...We will also be on campus Monday December 11th ...
******************************************
So, who is grassrootscampaigns.com?
Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. is a national firm specializing in building grassroots support for progressive causes, political candidates, public interest campaigns, and non-profit organizations.
Winning campaigns in America now means finding new voters, new donors, new bases of support, and building long term movements for political power and political change. Grassroots Campaigns brings together an experienced team of organizers and campaign professionals to provide the progressive community with grassroots fundraising and organizing strategies that can help build a powerful and winning progressive majority in America.
We continue to partner with the DNC to run canvass operations, get more people engaged in the party, raise as much money as possible, and build on the successes of 2006. We’re continuing to work with MoveOn.org Political Action to run Operation Democracy, working with local progressives to make sure that Democrats step up and make changes on key issues.
*****************************************
So, they're a special interest group paying out all this money for pretend "grassroots" people and THEN -
they have the nerve to post this inspirational quote:
“The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power.”
U.S. Senator and grassroots organizer, Paul Wellstone
ACLU? grassrootscampaigns.com? DNC? MoveOn.Org?
Well, lucky for us, they are a CORPORATION, so under Measure T they should be prohibited from funding any local involvement, at least under their real name. How do all the little phony sub orgs (ngos) work under Measure T? Anyone cover that?
But, let's not kid ourselves, these people are really special interest lobbyists, at best, just called by another name. And Salzman? Why he was the one jumping up and down because the Recall Committee paid signature gatherers. They just didn't know how to play the shell game, to hide the money.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
How many lawsuits does it take?
If you are a Palco worker who went to the "Free Public Workshop" (Bankruptcy 101: Understanding the Palco Chapter 11 Case) offered by the Crocodile Tears 'coalition' - I'm just curious - did anyone tell you about all the lawsuits the activists filed against Palco? No? Because it's time to 'move beyond that.' Now it is about 'healing' the wounds. But who inflicted the wounds? You know the answer.
Anyone who's lived here has experienced the steady drip, drip, drip of lawsuits, but never seen them all in one place, and probably never thought about how inter-related they all are. I'll bet "Humboldt Watershed Council" "President" never tells you about The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders (the "Committee.") (Or, in other words, the Rose Foundation.)
In May of 2000 "The Committee" * sent a letter to Maxxam's 'fellow' shareholders, declaring that they were "seeking your support because the Committee believes that Maxxam is a company in trouble." It appears they wanted to get their guys elected to the Board of Directors. And, as justification, they complained that "Maxxam is a company in trouble," and they delineated the reasons why. All those lawsuits, driving the company down. Never mentioning the source. I suppose if they were successful in gaining control of the company, all those lawsuits, and all those protests would have gone away.
"...Maxxam's Pacific Lumber subsidiary remains a focus of controversy and litigation:
-- Three pending lawsuits claim that Company logging operations have damaged neighboring property and property values; these suits seek unspecified monetary damages, and ask the court to enjoin certain future timber operations of the Company.
-- A wrongful death suit, filed in September, 1999, seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that Pacific Lumber's conduct and policies led to an incident in which an employee killed a young man by felling a tree on top of him.
-- The Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center ("EPIC") have sued to block logging on a piece of Company property that is surrounded on three sides by the newly created Headwaters Reserve, alleging the modifications in the plan did not receive appropriate environmental review.
-- On March 31, 1999, EPIC and Sierra Club sued to stop implementation of the Pacific Lumber Sustained Yield Plan ("SYP"), the Company's comprehensive plan for logging operations over the next 120 years, claiming that the plan violates both California's Environmental Quality Act and Endangered Species Act.
-- Also on March 31, 1999, Don Kegley and the United Steelworkers of America filed a separate lawsuit challenging the SYP on the grounds that it fails to provide for sustained timber production and harvesting over time. Additional information on this action is supplied below in the "Solicitation" section of this proxy statement.
-- EPIC and Sierra Club have also filed a Notice of Intent to Sue challenging the Company's Habitat Conservation Plan, on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Eight lawsuits in 1999 alone?
Plus:
Maxxam faces potential liabilities in two separate legal proceedings based on the failure and subsequent $1.6 billion bailout of United Savings Association of Texas, a savings and loan association that Maxxam is alleged to have controlled.
Maxxam and Charles Hurwitz, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, are respondents in an action brought by the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury, seeking $821,000,000 in restitution. Maxxam has agreed to indemnify Mr. Hurwitz and several other respondents in this action, which could result in significant exposure for restitution and penalties. That case is being litigated before an administrative law judge, who is expected to rule later this year. No determination as to the merits of this case has been made at this time, and a final judgment will be determined in an appropriate administrative proceeding (In the Matter of United Savings Association of Texas).
In addition, Mr. Hurwitz is currently defending a lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), "
They claimed that: "The Committee also believes that electing these independent candidates is important, given the Company's failure over the past year to capitalize on the so-called "Headwaters Agreement."
Under this Agreement, into which the Company entered on March 3, 1999, Maxxam received an extraordinary payment of $380 million in cash and property from the United States and the State of California, as payment for the sale of 5,600 acres of forest land owned by Pacific Lumber Company in northern California. But despite Maxxam's recognition of a $239 million gain in the Headwaters transaction, shareholders have seen relatively little benefit from the Headwaters Agreement. The Company reported significant operating losses and a relatively small amount of net income, and, approximately one year after consummation of the Headwaters Agreement, Maxxam stock price is where it was five years ago."
Gee, I wonder why?
They do not cop to - The "Rose Foundation's" apparent significant and aggressive role, again not acting as a passive donor, but acting, according to reports, as activists and lobbyists set on making Hurwitz guilty, and then using that to force the turnover of his land. The FDIC suit they caused to be brought about was recently characterized by they judge as the government acting like the mafia.
Going forward, as it was happening, it would have been nearly impossible to detect, each incident would be taken on its own merits, and seen as unrelated - kinda like Salzman's paving the way for Cotchett's new lawsuit, doesn't seem important, seems crazy to wonder what the hell is up with that - but looking back, there's a lot of pieces of the puzzle that need to be put together.
Related:
Copy of "The Committee's" Proxy Solicitiation posted on watchpaulARTICLES
Two more suits
HC - File suit, fail and repeat as needed in Hurwitz case
* Members of "the Committee" are The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (the "Rose Foundation") and the United Steelworkers of America ("USWA").
"In 1999, the Committee conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of Mr. Mikva and another candidate and in favor of resolutions similar to the Cumulative Voting and Declassified Board Proposals being offered this year. In addition the Rose Foundation (a Committee member), along with Jill Ratner, its president, and Thomas W. Little, its executive director, were sponsors of a cumulative voting resolution similar to the one submitted this year by the As You Sow Foundation and John C. Harrington, who were also sponsors of that 1999 resolution. In 1998, Ms. Ratner and Mr. Little, along with the California Public Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS"), sponsored the Declassified Board Proposal that Brent Blackwelder has submitted for consideration by the shareholders this year. In 1997, Ms. Ratner, Mr. Little, and the As You Sow Foundation conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of two other independent candidates for Common Director, as well as a shareholder resolution asking the Company to sell or trade its properties within the 60,000 acre Headwaters Forest area in northern California to a government agency or conservation organization for appropriate consideration"
Anyone who's lived here has experienced the steady drip, drip, drip of lawsuits, but never seen them all in one place, and probably never thought about how inter-related they all are. I'll bet "Humboldt Watershed Council" "President" never tells you about The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders (the "Committee.") (Or, in other words, the Rose Foundation.)
In May of 2000 "The Committee" * sent a letter to Maxxam's 'fellow' shareholders, declaring that they were "seeking your support because the Committee believes that Maxxam is a company in trouble." It appears they wanted to get their guys elected to the Board of Directors. And, as justification, they complained that "Maxxam is a company in trouble," and they delineated the reasons why. All those lawsuits, driving the company down. Never mentioning the source. I suppose if they were successful in gaining control of the company, all those lawsuits, and all those protests would have gone away.
"...Maxxam's Pacific Lumber subsidiary remains a focus of controversy and litigation:
-- Three pending lawsuits claim that Company logging operations have damaged neighboring property and property values; these suits seek unspecified monetary damages, and ask the court to enjoin certain future timber operations of the Company.
-- A wrongful death suit, filed in September, 1999, seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that Pacific Lumber's conduct and policies led to an incident in which an employee killed a young man by felling a tree on top of him.
-- The Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center ("EPIC") have sued to block logging on a piece of Company property that is surrounded on three sides by the newly created Headwaters Reserve, alleging the modifications in the plan did not receive appropriate environmental review.
-- On March 31, 1999, EPIC and Sierra Club sued to stop implementation of the Pacific Lumber Sustained Yield Plan ("SYP"), the Company's comprehensive plan for logging operations over the next 120 years, claiming that the plan violates both California's Environmental Quality Act and Endangered Species Act.
-- Also on March 31, 1999, Don Kegley and the United Steelworkers of America filed a separate lawsuit challenging the SYP on the grounds that it fails to provide for sustained timber production and harvesting over time. Additional information on this action is supplied below in the "Solicitation" section of this proxy statement.
-- EPIC and Sierra Club have also filed a Notice of Intent to Sue challenging the Company's Habitat Conservation Plan, on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Eight lawsuits in 1999 alone?
Plus:
Maxxam faces potential liabilities in two separate legal proceedings based on the failure and subsequent $1.6 billion bailout of United Savings Association of Texas, a savings and loan association that Maxxam is alleged to have controlled.
Maxxam and Charles Hurwitz, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, are respondents in an action brought by the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury, seeking $821,000,000 in restitution. Maxxam has agreed to indemnify Mr. Hurwitz and several other respondents in this action, which could result in significant exposure for restitution and penalties. That case is being litigated before an administrative law judge, who is expected to rule later this year. No determination as to the merits of this case has been made at this time, and a final judgment will be determined in an appropriate administrative proceeding (In the Matter of United Savings Association of Texas).
In addition, Mr. Hurwitz is currently defending a lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), "
They claimed that: "The Committee also believes that electing these independent candidates is important, given the Company's failure over the past year to capitalize on the so-called "Headwaters Agreement."
Under this Agreement, into which the Company entered on March 3, 1999, Maxxam received an extraordinary payment of $380 million in cash and property from the United States and the State of California, as payment for the sale of 5,600 acres of forest land owned by Pacific Lumber Company in northern California. But despite Maxxam's recognition of a $239 million gain in the Headwaters transaction, shareholders have seen relatively little benefit from the Headwaters Agreement. The Company reported significant operating losses and a relatively small amount of net income, and, approximately one year after consummation of the Headwaters Agreement, Maxxam stock price is where it was five years ago."
Gee, I wonder why?
They do not cop to - The "Rose Foundation's" apparent significant and aggressive role, again not acting as a passive donor, but acting, according to reports, as activists and lobbyists set on making Hurwitz guilty, and then using that to force the turnover of his land. The FDIC suit they caused to be brought about was recently characterized by they judge as the government acting like the mafia.
Going forward, as it was happening, it would have been nearly impossible to detect, each incident would be taken on its own merits, and seen as unrelated - kinda like Salzman's paving the way for Cotchett's new lawsuit, doesn't seem important, seems crazy to wonder what the hell is up with that - but looking back, there's a lot of pieces of the puzzle that need to be put together.
Related:
Copy of "The Committee's" Proxy Solicitiation posted on watchpaulARTICLES
Two more suits
HC - File suit, fail and repeat as needed in Hurwitz case
* Members of "the Committee" are The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (the "Rose Foundation") and the United Steelworkers of America ("USWA").
"In 1999, the Committee conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of Mr. Mikva and another candidate and in favor of resolutions similar to the Cumulative Voting and Declassified Board Proposals being offered this year. In addition the Rose Foundation (a Committee member), along with Jill Ratner, its president, and Thomas W. Little, its executive director, were sponsors of a cumulative voting resolution similar to the one submitted this year by the As You Sow Foundation and John C. Harrington, who were also sponsors of that 1999 resolution. In 1998, Ms. Ratner and Mr. Little, along with the California Public Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS"), sponsored the Declassified Board Proposal that Brent Blackwelder has submitted for consideration by the shareholders this year. In 1997, Ms. Ratner, Mr. Little, and the As You Sow Foundation conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of two other independent candidates for Common Director, as well as a shareholder resolution asking the Company to sell or trade its properties within the 60,000 acre Headwaters Forest area in northern California to a government agency or conservation organization for appropriate consideration"
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Shellenberger & The Rose Foundation
Pieces of the puzzle. Where the big money comes from? Evidence of the pressure tactics exerted on all levels. Michael Shellenberger, "The Rose Foundation," "The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders," "As You Sow Foundation" (seen that name recently.)
This isn't just passive donations, "Rose Foundation" was intensely involved, according to reports, in the negotiating of the Headwaters Deal, actively lobbying government officials, and pressuring for the "Debt for Trees" swap.
The following is part of a scheme to get their reps on Maxxam's board. A press release, one of many bits of information. This isn't even the most interesting piece - How they pressured them is another piece T/K (to come).
***
(Communications Works logo)
Communication Works
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 10, 1999
Reporters: Call For Interviews With Metzenbaum or Mikva
CONTACT: Michael Shellenberger, Katrina Muniz, 415-255-1946
(cell: 415-398-4001)
Steelworkers: David Foster, Director, 612-623-8045 (cell:
612-710-1700)
Jon Youngdahl, cell: 612-810-8788; Rose Foundation: Scott Adams,
Tim Little, Jill Ratner, 510-658-0702
MAXXAM SHAREHOLDER GROUP TO BRIEF REPORTERS ON EFFORTS TO
IMPROVE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT MAXXAM
Who: Jill Ratner, Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
Tom Van Dyck, As You Sow Foundation
Dave Foster, United Steelworkers of America
What: Press Conference
Where: Crowne Plaza Hotel: Houston Galleria
2222 West Loop South, Houston (tel. 713-961-7272)
When: 12:00 Noon, May 18 (Day Before Maxxam Shareholder Meeting
The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders will brief reporters about their campaign to elect two independent directors to the Maxxam board and to improve corporate governance at the company.
The Committee's proxy materials note that Maxxam recorded a net loss of $57.2 million for 1998. Business Week named Maxxam's board the 10th worst in the list of "The Worst Boards of Directors" and called it a "tiny board with little business
experience dominated by CEO" Charles Hurwitz (Dec. 8, 1997). Apart from performance issues, the proxy materials also cite several factors that, in the Committee's opinion, demonstrate a need for independent directors and corporate reform.
The briefing will take place on May 18, one day before Maxxam's annual meeting, which is scheduled to begin at 8:30 AM on
Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at the Waterwood National Resort and Conference Center in Huntsville, Texas.
The Committee is urging holders of Maxxam common stock to elect former U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum and former federal Judge Abner Mikva to the two board seats filled by owners of common stock. The other three seats on Maxxam's board are chosen by the common and preferred shareholders voting together, with preferred shares outvoting common shares 10 to one.
Participating in the press briefing on behalf of The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders are Tim Little and Jill Ratner of the Rose Foundation, and David Foster of the United Steelworkers of America. Also participating is Tom Van Dyck of the As You Sow Foundation, which is sponsoring one of the two shareholders resolutions, but is not a Committee member. In proxy materials circulated to Maxxam shareholders, the Committee explains why it believes that Maxxam needs independent directors and governance reforms.
DFAN14A 12th Page of 14 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 12th
* "Specifically, allegations of fiduciary lapses have surrounded Maxxam's CEO and Chairman, Charles Hurwitz. In April 1997, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in a case brought by minority Maxxam shareholders that Mr. Hurwitz had engaged in self-dealing with loans that were not found fair to the Company . . . . In addition, Maxxam faces potential liabilities in two separate legal proceedings based on the failure and subsequent $1.6 billion bailout of United Savings Association of Texas, a savings and loan association that Maxxam is alleged to have controlled. . . . These suits and related litigation have already been costly to the Company, which has paid approximately $40,000,000 in litigation expenses, including Mr. Hurwitz's expenses."
* "In 1997 and 1998 the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention ("CDF") suspended the timber operator license of Maxxam's Pacific Lumber subsidiary twice in a twelve month period, based on 128 cited violations of state forest practice rules. The most recent license suspension lasted over three months."
* "Maxxam's Kaiser Aluminum Corporation ('Kaiser'), 63% of whose outstanding common stock is held by Maxxam, is embroiled in a serious labor dispute, the longest in Kaiser's history. The Committee believes that this dispute and the associated costs were avoidable . . . If the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] does decide to file a complaint, such a complaint could allege that KACC [Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation] engaged in an illegal lockout. That contention, if established, could result in gross back pay liability of up to $3 million per week from January 14, 1999."
* KACC reported losses of $50 million in the fourth quarter of 1998 owing to the strike, and Kaiser reported a net loss of $38.9 million in that quarter."
* "In addition, serious accident rates and worker compensation claims increased at KACC since the strike began. According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration ("OSHA") safety logs, serious workplace injuries increased 138 percent in the fourth quarter of 1998 over the average of KACC during the first three quarters of 1998 prior to the labor dispute."
* In addition, both Kaiser and Pacific Lumber have experienced tragic fatalities that the Committee believes could have been prevented. In October 1997, a 33 year old Kaiser mechanic died when he was crushed beneath the bucket of a front-end loader he was repairing. The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries found Kaiser at fault in the incident, cited Kaiser for five safety violations, and fined it $35,000. In September 1998, a Pacific Lumber employee logged a tree into a group of protesters, killing a 24 year old man. Attorneys for the young man's family have publicly announced that they expect the logging incident to be the subject of a lawsuit seeking damages."
The following may be deemed to be "participants" in this solicitation: The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which owns 50 shares of Maxxam common stock; Jill Ratner and Thomas W. Little, who own 90 shares of Maxxam common stock as tenants in common; the United Steelworkers of America, which owns 1002 shares of Maxxam common stock; As You Sow Foundation, which owns 100 shares of Maxxam common stock; Howard M. Metzenbaum, who does not own Maxxam stock; and Abner J. Mikva, who owns 50 shares of Maxxam common stock. The foregoing (except
the As You Sow Foundation) constitute the members of The Committee of Concerned Shareholders and the two nominees for
Maxxam common director.
Michael Shellenberger, Director
Communication Works
tel: 415-255-1946, fax: 415-255-1947
http://www.communicationworks.org
###
This isn't just passive donations, "Rose Foundation" was intensely involved, according to reports, in the negotiating of the Headwaters Deal, actively lobbying government officials, and pressuring for the "Debt for Trees" swap.
The following is part of a scheme to get their reps on Maxxam's board. A press release, one of many bits of information. This isn't even the most interesting piece - How they pressured them is another piece T/K (to come).
***
(Communications Works logo)
Communication Works
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 10, 1999
Reporters: Call For Interviews With Metzenbaum or Mikva
CONTACT: Michael Shellenberger, Katrina Muniz, 415-255-1946
(cell: 415-398-4001)
Steelworkers: David Foster, Director, 612-623-8045 (cell:
612-710-1700)
Jon Youngdahl, cell: 612-810-8788; Rose Foundation: Scott Adams,
Tim Little, Jill Ratner, 510-658-0702
MAXXAM SHAREHOLDER GROUP TO BRIEF REPORTERS ON EFFORTS TO
IMPROVE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT MAXXAM
Who: Jill Ratner, Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
Tom Van Dyck, As You Sow Foundation
Dave Foster, United Steelworkers of America
What: Press Conference
Where: Crowne Plaza Hotel: Houston Galleria
2222 West Loop South, Houston (tel. 713-961-7272)
When: 12:00 Noon, May 18 (Day Before Maxxam Shareholder Meeting
The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders will brief reporters about their campaign to elect two independent directors to the Maxxam board and to improve corporate governance at the company.
The Committee's proxy materials note that Maxxam recorded a net loss of $57.2 million for 1998. Business Week named Maxxam's board the 10th worst in the list of "The Worst Boards of Directors" and called it a "tiny board with little business
experience dominated by CEO" Charles Hurwitz (Dec. 8, 1997). Apart from performance issues, the proxy materials also cite several factors that, in the Committee's opinion, demonstrate a need for independent directors and corporate reform.
The briefing will take place on May 18, one day before Maxxam's annual meeting, which is scheduled to begin at 8:30 AM on
Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at the Waterwood National Resort and Conference Center in Huntsville, Texas.
The Committee is urging holders of Maxxam common stock to elect former U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum and former federal Judge Abner Mikva to the two board seats filled by owners of common stock. The other three seats on Maxxam's board are chosen by the common and preferred shareholders voting together, with preferred shares outvoting common shares 10 to one.
Participating in the press briefing on behalf of The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders are Tim Little and Jill Ratner of the Rose Foundation, and David Foster of the United Steelworkers of America. Also participating is Tom Van Dyck of the As You Sow Foundation, which is sponsoring one of the two shareholders resolutions, but is not a Committee member. In proxy materials circulated to Maxxam shareholders, the Committee explains why it believes that Maxxam needs independent directors and governance reforms.
DFAN14A 12th Page of 14 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 12th
* "Specifically, allegations of fiduciary lapses have surrounded Maxxam's CEO and Chairman, Charles Hurwitz. In April 1997, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in a case brought by minority Maxxam shareholders that Mr. Hurwitz had engaged in self-dealing with loans that were not found fair to the Company . . . . In addition, Maxxam faces potential liabilities in two separate legal proceedings based on the failure and subsequent $1.6 billion bailout of United Savings Association of Texas, a savings and loan association that Maxxam is alleged to have controlled. . . . These suits and related litigation have already been costly to the Company, which has paid approximately $40,000,000 in litigation expenses, including Mr. Hurwitz's expenses."
* "In 1997 and 1998 the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention ("CDF") suspended the timber operator license of Maxxam's Pacific Lumber subsidiary twice in a twelve month period, based on 128 cited violations of state forest practice rules. The most recent license suspension lasted over three months."
* "Maxxam's Kaiser Aluminum Corporation ('Kaiser'), 63% of whose outstanding common stock is held by Maxxam, is embroiled in a serious labor dispute, the longest in Kaiser's history. The Committee believes that this dispute and the associated costs were avoidable . . . If the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] does decide to file a complaint, such a complaint could allege that KACC [Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation] engaged in an illegal lockout. That contention, if established, could result in gross back pay liability of up to $3 million per week from January 14, 1999."
* KACC reported losses of $50 million in the fourth quarter of 1998 owing to the strike, and Kaiser reported a net loss of $38.9 million in that quarter."
* "In addition, serious accident rates and worker compensation claims increased at KACC since the strike began. According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration ("OSHA") safety logs, serious workplace injuries increased 138 percent in the fourth quarter of 1998 over the average of KACC during the first three quarters of 1998 prior to the labor dispute."
* In addition, both Kaiser and Pacific Lumber have experienced tragic fatalities that the Committee believes could have been prevented. In October 1997, a 33 year old Kaiser mechanic died when he was crushed beneath the bucket of a front-end loader he was repairing. The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries found Kaiser at fault in the incident, cited Kaiser for five safety violations, and fined it $35,000. In September 1998, a Pacific Lumber employee logged a tree into a group of protesters, killing a 24 year old man. Attorneys for the young man's family have publicly announced that they expect the logging incident to be the subject of a lawsuit seeking damages."
The following may be deemed to be "participants" in this solicitation: The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which owns 50 shares of Maxxam common stock; Jill Ratner and Thomas W. Little, who own 90 shares of Maxxam common stock as tenants in common; the United Steelworkers of America, which owns 1002 shares of Maxxam common stock; As You Sow Foundation, which owns 100 shares of Maxxam common stock; Howard M. Metzenbaum, who does not own Maxxam stock; and Abner J. Mikva, who owns 50 shares of Maxxam common stock. The foregoing (except
the As You Sow Foundation) constitute the members of The Committee of Concerned Shareholders and the two nominees for
Maxxam common director.
Michael Shellenberger, Director
Communication Works
tel: 415-255-1946, fax: 415-255-1947
http://www.communicationworks.org
###
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Finding the answers
So what's the big deal about the Earth First funding trails? Who cares about these big Foundations and their grants?
It is that this information provides answers to some of the question I had in the beginning, when Richard Salzman told me this was bigger than I could possibly imagine: Obviously many of these questions have now been answered, such as Ken Miller's role in the filing of the PL lawsuit. Finding the money trail has always seemed to be the key, and to find that activistcash has tracked the connections between these groups is an important part of this whole story. It still remains to track the money trails between Salzman, Shellenberger, the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" and Shellenberger's operations, if any.
These are some of those questions:
- When did Stoen, Shellenberger and Salzman team up?
- When did Paul Gallegos enter the picture?
- Who introduced Richard Salzman to Shellenberger?
- Who introduced Richard Salzman to Tim Stoen? And when?
- How did Richard Salzman come to work on the Gallegos campaign?
- Has Richard Salzman worked with Shellenberger prior to moving here?
- Before working on Gallegos campaign?
- Have any of them worked with Stoen before?
- When did he start having regular meetings/strategy sessions with Shellenberger?
- Was Richard Salzman hired or recruited by Shellenberger? By Stoen?
- Did AEB/Richard Salzman HIRE Shellenberger?
- How much has that cost? Where did the money come from?
- Is he volunteering his time? If so, why?
- Is Richard Salzman aware of Shellenberger’s work with Earth First? With Rainforest Action Network?
- What does he believe Shellenberger’s motives are?
- How is Rainforest Action Network related to the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business"?
(I didn't even know about the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters, or about Ken Miller's connections to these groups, or his involvement in the filing of the lawsuit.)
- follow Michael Shellenberger/Lumina Strategies and his many causes and websites, find our what his role here is.
- What is Stoen’s relationship to Richard Salzman and AEB?
- What is Stoen’s relationship to Earth First?
- What is Stoen’s relationship to Ken Miller?
- How did Stoen get in touch with Gallegos?
- How long has he been trying to secure a position in Humboldt County? - and Why?
- How did Stoen come to file the PL suit?
- Is it true that the suit had been languishing in the DA's office, that Terry Farmer had refused to file it after looking into the facts, realized that the Attorney General would not back it up? That Fish and Game were honor bound to defend PL in case of a suit, by the terms of the agreement.
- Did Ken Miller tell him about the suit? Lobby him to pursue it? What is Ken Miller's role?
- Was Stoen aware of the case prior to taking his office?
- Why did he stop taking calls and meeting with the various State agencies who tried to tell him that the case had serious flaws - or no merit?
- Why was Tim Stoen taking the case to the public before the case had been filed/served?(To the Democratic Central Committee? The Bar Association? The Fortuna City Council? Rotary?) What’s the reason for the dog’n pony show? Is it to exert pressure on the Board of Supervisors?
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to John Burton? (Recent AND past)
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to Cotchett's San Francisco Law Firm?
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to Michael Shellenberger? Where did he meet him?
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to Earth First?
- What is Stoen’s relationship with the "Mendocino County Defense Committee"? Wasn’t in fact part of his tactics aimed at winning the other lawsuit? Pressuring public officials and manipulating public opinion "framing the debate" as it were.
- How is the "Alliance for Ethical Business" related to the "Mendocino County Defense Committee"? Did Stoen commission it? Found it? Is it in fact part of his tactics in this lawsuit?
- Is the AEB a vehicle to secure funding to pay for the hiring of the SF law firm? (Again see the Humboldt County memo)
- How much money has the AEB raised? Where is it coming from? Where is it going?
- Who is behind the "Alliance for Ethical Business"? What are their real motives?
- Isn’t it wrong for the DAs office, the people’s arm of the law, to accept or be influenced by special interest money? To commission a source for those monies?
It is that this information provides answers to some of the question I had in the beginning, when Richard Salzman told me this was bigger than I could possibly imagine: Obviously many of these questions have now been answered, such as Ken Miller's role in the filing of the PL lawsuit. Finding the money trail has always seemed to be the key, and to find that activistcash has tracked the connections between these groups is an important part of this whole story. It still remains to track the money trails between Salzman, Shellenberger, the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" and Shellenberger's operations, if any.
These are some of those questions:
- When did Stoen, Shellenberger and Salzman team up?
- When did Paul Gallegos enter the picture?
- Who introduced Richard Salzman to Shellenberger?
- Who introduced Richard Salzman to Tim Stoen? And when?
- How did Richard Salzman come to work on the Gallegos campaign?
- Has Richard Salzman worked with Shellenberger prior to moving here?
- Before working on Gallegos campaign?
- Have any of them worked with Stoen before?
- When did he start having regular meetings/strategy sessions with Shellenberger?
- Was Richard Salzman hired or recruited by Shellenberger? By Stoen?
- Did AEB/Richard Salzman HIRE Shellenberger?
- How much has that cost? Where did the money come from?
- Is he volunteering his time? If so, why?
- Is Richard Salzman aware of Shellenberger’s work with Earth First? With Rainforest Action Network?
- What does he believe Shellenberger’s motives are?
- How is Rainforest Action Network related to the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business"?
(I didn't even know about the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters, or about Ken Miller's connections to these groups, or his involvement in the filing of the lawsuit.)
- follow Michael Shellenberger/Lumina Strategies and his many causes and websites, find our what his role here is.
- What is Stoen’s relationship to Richard Salzman and AEB?
- What is Stoen’s relationship to Earth First?
- What is Stoen’s relationship to Ken Miller?
- How did Stoen get in touch with Gallegos?
- How long has he been trying to secure a position in Humboldt County? - and Why?
- How did Stoen come to file the PL suit?
- Is it true that the suit had been languishing in the DA's office, that Terry Farmer had refused to file it after looking into the facts, realized that the Attorney General would not back it up? That Fish and Game were honor bound to defend PL in case of a suit, by the terms of the agreement.
- Did Ken Miller tell him about the suit? Lobby him to pursue it? What is Ken Miller's role?
- Was Stoen aware of the case prior to taking his office?
- Why did he stop taking calls and meeting with the various State agencies who tried to tell him that the case had serious flaws - or no merit?
- Why was Tim Stoen taking the case to the public before the case had been filed/served?(To the Democratic Central Committee? The Bar Association? The Fortuna City Council? Rotary?) What’s the reason for the dog’n pony show? Is it to exert pressure on the Board of Supervisors?
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to John Burton? (Recent AND past)
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to Cotchett's San Francisco Law Firm?
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to Michael Shellenberger? Where did he meet him?
- What is Tim Stoen’s relationship to Earth First?
- What is Stoen’s relationship with the "Mendocino County Defense Committee"? Wasn’t in fact part of his tactics aimed at winning the other lawsuit? Pressuring public officials and manipulating public opinion "framing the debate" as it were.
- How is the "Alliance for Ethical Business" related to the "Mendocino County Defense Committee"? Did Stoen commission it? Found it? Is it in fact part of his tactics in this lawsuit?
- Is the AEB a vehicle to secure funding to pay for the hiring of the SF law firm? (Again see the Humboldt County memo)
- How much money has the AEB raised? Where is it coming from? Where is it going?
- Who is behind the "Alliance for Ethical Business"? What are their real motives?
- Isn’t it wrong for the DAs office, the people’s arm of the law, to accept or be influenced by special interest money? To commission a source for those monies?
Earth First funding trails
.
"If you want to contribute money to EF! and get a tax break on your donation, send your check to the Fund for Wild Nature (FWN). Formerly named the Earth First! Foundation, FWN serves as a tax-exempt pass-through for money to reach Earth First!ers. It has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to EF! organizations.
FWN has doled out money to the Earth First! Journal, Mendocino Earth First! and North Coast Earth First! (California), Elaho Earth First! (Canada), Wild Rockies Earth First!, Arizona Earth First!, and many others. More often, though, the Fund gives to EF! groups that don't have the words "Earth First!" in their names -- like the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters (BACH). BACH's leader is Karen Pickett, whose arrest record hasn't prevented her from holding the purse strings for the Earth First! Direct Action Fund.
FWN provided the initial support for EF! spin-offs like the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and the Ruckus Society, both of which were started by Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle. Indeed, FWN thinks of itself as the venture capitalist of radical environmental groups.
...In 1999 FWN began to bankroll "direct action" against biotech crops (although Earth First!ers began targeting them as early as 1987). The now defunct Bioengineering Action Network (BAN) received FWN money. When it was functioning, BAN served as a press-outreach service for the FBI-certified domestic-terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF), another Earth First! spin-off. BAN's website featured a how-to guide for tearing out biotech crops (they call it "nighttime gardening") and instructed saboteurs on how to "research your target."
...But even EF! draws a line between the kind of illegal activities that can be funded with tax-exempt money, and those that are too violent for the Fund for Wild Nature to touch. Cash for these endeavors comes from the Earth First! Direct Action Fund. Bragging that "thousands of EF!ers have been arrested around the world," the EF! Direct Action Fund's website appeals for donations:
Direct action requires courage, commitment, training and the ability to focus on an urgent issue. Unfortunately, it also requires money. Since 1985, The Earth First! Direct Action Fund (DAF) has assisted in planning, coordinating, and funding activists on the front lines. These people are the backbone, indeed the heart and soul, of the Earth First! movement.
Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle registered the Earth First! Action Fund as a California business in 1990, with the Action Fund's address listed as "C/O Rainforest Action Network," another Roselle creation. He lost control of the checkbook in settling his divorce from fellow Earth First!er Karen Pickett. But that hasn't stopped Rainforest Action Network from supporting Earth First! groups. On one occasion, RAN donated "$10,000 of general support to Luna Media in their work with North Coast Earth First!."" source
"If you want to contribute money to EF! and get a tax break on your donation, send your check to the Fund for Wild Nature (FWN). Formerly named the Earth First! Foundation, FWN serves as a tax-exempt pass-through for money to reach Earth First!ers. It has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to EF! organizations.
FWN has doled out money to the Earth First! Journal, Mendocino Earth First! and North Coast Earth First! (California), Elaho Earth First! (Canada), Wild Rockies Earth First!, Arizona Earth First!, and many others. More often, though, the Fund gives to EF! groups that don't have the words "Earth First!" in their names -- like the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters (BACH). BACH's leader is Karen Pickett, whose arrest record hasn't prevented her from holding the purse strings for the Earth First! Direct Action Fund.
FWN provided the initial support for EF! spin-offs like the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and the Ruckus Society, both of which were started by Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle. Indeed, FWN thinks of itself as the venture capitalist of radical environmental groups.
...In 1999 FWN began to bankroll "direct action" against biotech crops (although Earth First!ers began targeting them as early as 1987). The now defunct Bioengineering Action Network (BAN) received FWN money. When it was functioning, BAN served as a press-outreach service for the FBI-certified domestic-terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF), another Earth First! spin-off. BAN's website featured a how-to guide for tearing out biotech crops (they call it "nighttime gardening") and instructed saboteurs on how to "research your target."
...But even EF! draws a line between the kind of illegal activities that can be funded with tax-exempt money, and those that are too violent for the Fund for Wild Nature to touch. Cash for these endeavors comes from the Earth First! Direct Action Fund. Bragging that "thousands of EF!ers have been arrested around the world," the EF! Direct Action Fund's website appeals for donations:
Direct action requires courage, commitment, training and the ability to focus on an urgent issue. Unfortunately, it also requires money. Since 1985, The Earth First! Direct Action Fund (DAF) has assisted in planning, coordinating, and funding activists on the front lines. These people are the backbone, indeed the heart and soul, of the Earth First! movement.
Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle registered the Earth First! Action Fund as a California business in 1990, with the Action Fund's address listed as "C/O Rainforest Action Network," another Roselle creation. He lost control of the checkbook in settling his divorce from fellow Earth First!er Karen Pickett. But that hasn't stopped Rainforest Action Network from supporting Earth First! groups. On one occasion, RAN donated "$10,000 of general support to Luna Media in their work with North Coast Earth First!."" source
Friday, January 26, 2007
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
Apparently - CETOS is not a lab
• CETOS is looking for NEW MEMBERS!! Your membership supports our outreach efforts and provides educational materials for the general public. We are an independent non-profit, 501(C )(3), dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Please make checks payable to TIDES/CETOS, PO Box 673, Gualala, CA 95445. Basic membership is $30.00 though additional donations are welcome. All contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
Friends of the Center for Ethics and Toxics
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our generous benefactors, patrons, donors, supporters, contributors,
and friends alike who have donated funds during the year 2002.
Benefactor
$5000 & Above
California for Alternatives to Toxics
Klamath Environmental Law Center
Jennifer Altman Foundation
Ecological Rights Foundation
As You Sow Foundation
***
Why is this so shocking? Because "... a recent toxicological study that found elevated levels of dioxin in mussels and crabs immediately adjacent to the Sierra Pacific mill. The study, which has also not been made public before, was commissioned by the Ecological Rights Foundation, a Garberville-based environmental group that is suing Sierra Pacific for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. In addition to looking at shellfish near the mill, the study also collected and tested shellfish in Hookton Slough, located at the relatively pristine southern tip of Humboldt Bay. Mussels there had no detectable dioxin contamination and the levels for a species of crab were extremely low, according to the study.
The study, done by toxicologist Marc Lappe of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif., adds that "any increase in body burdens of (dioxin and related) chemicals increases the human risk of several toxic end points including cancer, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and possibly immunotoxicity." source
And the "Ecological Rights Foundation" got $700,000 out of that suit.
Then they set up Baykeeping.
• CETOS is looking for NEW MEMBERS!! Your membership supports our outreach efforts and provides educational materials for the general public. We are an independent non-profit, 501(C )(3), dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Please make checks payable to TIDES/CETOS, PO Box 673, Gualala, CA 95445. Basic membership is $30.00 though additional donations are welcome. All contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
Friends of the Center for Ethics and Toxics
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our generous benefactors, patrons, donors, supporters, contributors,
and friends alike who have donated funds during the year 2002.
Benefactor
$5000 & Above
California for Alternatives to Toxics
Klamath Environmental Law Center
Jennifer Altman Foundation
Ecological Rights Foundation
As You Sow Foundation
***
Why is this so shocking? Because "... a recent toxicological study that found elevated levels of dioxin in mussels and crabs immediately adjacent to the Sierra Pacific mill. The study, which has also not been made public before, was commissioned by the Ecological Rights Foundation, a Garberville-based environmental group that is suing Sierra Pacific for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. In addition to looking at shellfish near the mill, the study also collected and tested shellfish in Hookton Slough, located at the relatively pristine southern tip of Humboldt Bay. Mussels there had no detectable dioxin contamination and the levels for a species of crab were extremely low, according to the study.
The study, done by toxicologist Marc Lappe of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif., adds that "any increase in body burdens of (dioxin and related) chemicals increases the human risk of several toxic end points including cancer, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and possibly immunotoxicity." source
And the "Ecological Rights Foundation" got $700,000 out of that suit.
Then they set up Baykeeping.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Who can you trust? w/update
What does Baykeeper have to do with the Ecological Rights Foundation, a Garberville-based environmental group that was suing Sierra Pacific in 2002, who commissioned a toxicological study that found elevated levels of dioxin in mussels and crabs immediately adjacent to the Sierra Pacific Mill? (ncjournal 6/13/02)
The study was done by toxicologist Marc Lappe of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif
What's interesting is that The Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS), is a project of the Tides Center.
According to financial information compiled by activistcash.com, "The Tides Center is an offshoot of the Tides Foundation - the 800-pound gorilla of radical activist funding. Many environmental groups that now operate on their own got their start as a “project” of the Tides Center.
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. (Tides Foundation is known to "routinely obscure the sources of its tax-exempt millions," and "makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used. In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise."
"By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”
So the activist group ERF used an activist funded Lab (CETOS) to process their data - If you ask me the toxicology study has to be considered suspect as it cannot be seen as an objective and unbiased party.
Have I got this right? The State Water Board just used that data without knowing it was suspect. "...in making its determination to list Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin, the state relied exclusively on 14 out of 29 tissue samples taken from testing resulting from a lawsuit filed against Sierra Pacific Industries by the Ecological Rights Foundation in 2002 over contamination concerns."
The same samples taken by "Marc Lappe, a consulting toxicologist and former director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics who was hired by Ecological Rights Foundation..."
Which brings up the bigger question - What oversight exists for the orgs - EPIC (wildcalifornia.org), ERF (ecorights.org), Baykeeper (humboldtbaykeeper.org), Humboldt Watershed Council - how are people, the general public, and the people who end up in positions on water boards and other government positions to ensure that the information brought before them - information that is to be considered say, when deciding whether or not to list Humboldt Bay as "Toxic" - how are they to ensure that that information is unbiased, that the chain of command of the samples in question can be verified, that the samples haven't been tampered with, that the results have been accurately reported? How are they supposed to know when they are being played?
And how are they supposed to KNOW that the lab whose results they trust is funded by the very same activist network that funds many of the very same orgs that are propositioning them?
It's time to start a North Coast version of ActivistCash. Follow the money trails. See who is funding who. And why.
And then it is time for some legislation requiring oversight of the orgs - because they are not just made of of grassroots citizens anymore. ERF has "SEVENTEEN attorneys working together to achieve the Foundation’s mission."
***
UPDATE:
"...Humboldt Baykeepers also comes under the umbrella of the Ecological Rights Foundation, which last year settled a federal lawsuit against Sierra Pacific Industries over chemical pollution to the Mad River Slough and Humboldt Bay. The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office filed a twin suit, and Sierra Pacific agreed to pay the foundation and the people a total of $1.5 million to settle the suits.
Fred Evanson, a board member of the foundation, is also volunteering his time with the Baykeepers, which he helped forge.
...The Garberville-based foundation also bought the Baykeepers' new 25-foot Boston Whaler, which it intends to use as a patrol boat in the bay and along the coast from the Eel River to Trinidad.
..."We're not acting like we're here to save the day," Nichols said. "We're acting like another piece in the puzzle."
Who's the parent organization? Looks like one litigious group just spawned another.
The study was done by toxicologist Marc Lappe of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif
What's interesting is that The Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS), is a project of the Tides Center.
According to financial information compiled by activistcash.com, "The Tides Center is an offshoot of the Tides Foundation - the 800-pound gorilla of radical activist funding. Many environmental groups that now operate on their own got their start as a “project” of the Tides Center.
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. (Tides Foundation is known to "routinely obscure the sources of its tax-exempt millions," and "makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used. In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise."
"By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”
So the activist group ERF used an activist funded Lab (CETOS) to process their data - If you ask me the toxicology study has to be considered suspect as it cannot be seen as an objective and unbiased party.
Have I got this right? The State Water Board just used that data without knowing it was suspect. "...in making its determination to list Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin, the state relied exclusively on 14 out of 29 tissue samples taken from testing resulting from a lawsuit filed against Sierra Pacific Industries by the Ecological Rights Foundation in 2002 over contamination concerns."
The same samples taken by "Marc Lappe, a consulting toxicologist and former director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics who was hired by Ecological Rights Foundation..."
Which brings up the bigger question - What oversight exists for the orgs - EPIC (wildcalifornia.org), ERF (ecorights.org), Baykeeper (humboldtbaykeeper.org), Humboldt Watershed Council - how are people, the general public, and the people who end up in positions on water boards and other government positions to ensure that the information brought before them - information that is to be considered say, when deciding whether or not to list Humboldt Bay as "Toxic" - how are they to ensure that that information is unbiased, that the chain of command of the samples in question can be verified, that the samples haven't been tampered with, that the results have been accurately reported? How are they supposed to know when they are being played?
And how are they supposed to KNOW that the lab whose results they trust is funded by the very same activist network that funds many of the very same orgs that are propositioning them?
It's time to start a North Coast version of ActivistCash. Follow the money trails. See who is funding who. And why.
And then it is time for some legislation requiring oversight of the orgs - because they are not just made of of grassroots citizens anymore. ERF has "SEVENTEEN attorneys working together to achieve the Foundation’s mission."
***
UPDATE:
"...Humboldt Baykeepers also comes under the umbrella of the Ecological Rights Foundation, which last year settled a federal lawsuit against Sierra Pacific Industries over chemical pollution to the Mad River Slough and Humboldt Bay. The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office filed a twin suit, and Sierra Pacific agreed to pay the foundation and the people a total of $1.5 million to settle the suits.
Fred Evanson, a board member of the foundation, is also volunteering his time with the Baykeepers, which he helped forge.
...The Garberville-based foundation also bought the Baykeepers' new 25-foot Boston Whaler, which it intends to use as a patrol boat in the bay and along the coast from the Eel River to Trinidad.
..."We're not acting like we're here to save the day," Nichols said. "We're acting like another piece in the puzzle."
Who's the parent organization? Looks like one litigious group just spawned another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)