Post by: bigtex on September 14, 2024, 08:37:13 PM
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: RB on September 14, 2024, 10:58:26 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on September 15, 2024, 07:06:05 AM
Post by: MR5x5 on September 16, 2024, 08:44:05 AM
Post by: TriggerMike on September 26, 2024, 11:51:23 PM
As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid. This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms. I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.Cha-ching! I should've went to law school for environmental law. At first I thought Biden was just confused here, but this makes more sense. Although I still think he's confused
Post by: Caseknife on September 27, 2024, 07:05:02 AM
As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid. This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms. I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.Can't remember the law right now, but that is correct. It was initially designed to protect the little guy from government overreach, but was rewritten to include non-profit groups. If you research most of the anti-hunting non-profits, 95% of their staff are lawyers. They throw out blanket lawsuits and if the court determines they have won in only one of the criteria, their legal fees are paid by the government. These lawsuits have nothing to do with the benefit to the animals/habitat in question, but only to the coffers of the environmental groups.
Post by: optic2 on September 27, 2024, 01:40:09 PM
As I understand it, under the ESA, win or lose, you're legal fees are paid. This creates a perverse incentive for lawsuits and an unlimited funding source for law firms. I don't think there is any more to these lawsuits than simple greed.Can't remember the law right now, but that is correct. It was initially designed to protect the little guy from government overreach, but was rewritten to include non-profit groups. If you research most of the anti-hunting non-profits, 95% of their staff are lawyers. They throw out blanket lawsuits and if the court determines they have won in only one of the criteria, their legal fees are paid by the government. These lawsuits have nothing to do with the benefit to the animals/habitat in question, but only to the coffers of the environmental groups.
No only that. The government awards them regular lawyer fees, yet the non-profits have right out of law school lawyers that want to "save the environment" who are really low paid. Something like they get $300/hr from the government for work done by brand new lawyers making $30/hr. It's a huge grift that brings in massive profits.
Remember, non-profit isn't quite what you think it is. I could start a "non-profit" today, pay myself as the CEO 95% of the money brought in, the other 4% on a position for my friend and only use 1% of what we bring for an actual cause.