Intervenor status denied in latest wolf lawsuit

[mightyhunter]

I know that Big Fin is all over this topic, but I thought I would give an update to you all. By the way, I am a retired 31 year member of the Idaho State Bar Association currently on affiliate status. On May 5th, 2011, various eco-elite groups filed two lawsuits challenging the "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget bill. Those lawsuits were consolidated into one. That is Case # 9:2011 CV 00070 in the Federal District Court for Montana. YES, JUDGE MALLOY. Alliance for Wild Rockies and Center for Biological Diversity are the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.
On June 1st ,2011 intervenor status (the right to participate in the lawsuit) was denied by Judge Malloy to the NRA and also to SCI. The judge's reasoning is that the federal government would adequately represent the interests of the NRA and the SCI in the litigation. I know that many on this forum and other websites may be down on BGF, SFW, SCI, NRA and even the RMEF, but do you feel comfortable knowing that various sportsmans groups may not be allowed to present a voice in this litigation? I just don't trust the Obama Justice Department and Ken Salazar to adequately defend the "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget bill. Sorry if I have stirred up a hornet's nest.

 

[Bambistew]

I trust the government more than I trust the D-bags at SFW and BGF.

Judge Malloy will hear the case, they didn't chose him... Did you flunk US Government in High School?

 

[mdunc8]

I don't see why the NRA or SCI have any business meddling in the lawsuit. The two plaintiffs are contesting the legality of what Congress did. Where do the NRA or SCI factor into any of it?

 

[mightyhunter]

Thanks Bambistew for the positive comment and personal attack. I never stated that the Plaintiff's chose Judge Malloy. Thats a conclusion that you drew. Prior to my original post, did you even know that the lawsuits challenging the "wolf rider" to the 2011 budget had been filed. Where you aware that Judge Malloy has already issued an unusual scheduling order that to some indicates that he may strike down the "wolf rider" very quickly as a violation of the separation of powers? I am just reporting what has been going on. I am concerned that many sportsman are under the impression that the wolf issue is over and the Fall hunts will take place in Idaho and Montana in 2011 without challenge. That may or may not be the case. I don't belong to SFW, BGF, RMEF, SCI etc. I don't even want to get into a discussion about which group is good or which group is bad. There are plenty of people on any hunting forum willing to get their panties in a bunch on that subject.I guess mdunc8 is perfectly happy to have the Obama administration, USFWS and Mr. Salazar speak for everyone on the wolf issue. The feds have done such a bang up good job on the subject for the last 16 years, why should anyone think that anything different will take place. All the best.

 

[MuddyBull]

Not suprised, the Honor did not seem to be the voice of reason and the public before.

 

[sweetnectar]

Thanks for the update mightyhunter.
I didn't know anything had happened yet...I only figured some how, some way, things would get challenged.
As far as trusting Molloy...Let me put it this way. If I had to trust someone in the same fox hole to guard my six, he would likely be my last pick.

 

[mdunc8]

Mighty, you're the lawyer, so please explain to me why the NRA or SCI should be involved. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. I realize most hunters would like them, and other hunting/gun groups, to be involved, but I don't understand the legality of their involvement.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Mighty, you're the lawyer, so please explain to me why the NRA or SCI should be involved. .

Because they are trying to represent the interests of their members, and it's good PR to keep fighting the fight.

Some folks I know that have practiced in Molloy's court are also speculating that the intervenor status and the quick date could mean the opposite; that the case has no merit and will be dismissed.

BTW - The job of the judge is not to sway with the court of public opinion, or to take a vote on an issue. His job is to interpret the law as it is written. Judge Molloy has done just that. Vilifying this guy is misplaced anger.

 

[Big Fin]

This is interesting, for sure. What mightyhunter says has some worried, and as Ben Lamb has indicated the reason being kicked around in some legal camps is that Malloy plans to rule against these groups.

There is no consistency in the legal opinions I have heard. Some are confident and some are concerned.

Wish it would just get decided ASAP, so we can find out what the deal will be. If it is shot down, time to make a different run at things, but this time the sweep will be even more broader. Evidently these groups did not read Hal Herring's piece in HCN, which I think Ben Lamb posted a link to in another piece.

Sooner or later, these groups are going to piss off the people so bad, that the backlash will be more than they could ever imagine.

Enough alread.

 

[mightyhunter]

mdunc8,
I believe FRCP 24 governs where individuals or groups, not parties to the actual litigation, seek to intervene in a lawsuit. In this case, I believe the sportsman's groups would be identified as permissive intervenors. The claim would be that they, through their members, have an actual interest that may be adversely affected by the outcome of the pending litigation. The judge has the discretion to allow them to join in or not. Usually an intervenor is concerned that the party defendant (in this case the federal government) may not raise all the issues and arguments necessary to resolve the litigation in a way that is satisfactory to the intervenors. In some instances, the interest of the U.S. government may not be as strong as the interests of the states involved or those who will be actually affected by a judicial decision (sportsman, ranchers). I would think that some livestock organizations are seeking to intervene in the lawsuit. I believe that the State of Idaho has joined in the lawsuit. Personally, I am not persuaded that the current administration is all that interested in a favorable outcome for wolf delisting. The two politicians that blocked stand alone legislation on wolf delisting were Senators Ben Cardon (D) of Maryland and Barbara Boxer (D) California. Last time I checked there were no wolves in either of those states. At the risk of sounding like a basher of the Democratic Party, many constituents of that party are the same eco-elite groups filing these lawsuits. Those eco-elite groups have a lot of money to donate in the political process. Denying intervenor status to sportsman's groups seems questionable to me when contrasted with many of the plaintiff groups that filed the latest lawsuit challenging the "wolf rider". Many of the eco-elite (I prefer that term over enivronmentalist) groups may be from states that have no direct interest in the wolf issue. The groups may have few if any members who actually live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. I believe that allowing the sportsman's groups, ranchers and the states as intervenors is an issue of fairness. However, ultimately it will be in the discretion of Judge Malloy to allow these groups in.
Again, I know that many on various hunting forums are not happy with SFW, MDF, BGF, NRA, SCI for the way they handled the "wolf rider' but I would think that sportsman's groups should have a voice in the litigation.

 

[mightyhunter]

Ben Lamb may well be right on the quick date issue for resolution. No one really knows what will happen or when it will happen. He may actually be cutting off the number of intervenors to streamline and speed the process up. It is all speculation at this point and nothing more.
Big Fin is dead on with his assessment that "sooner or later, these people (eco-elites) are going to piss off the people so bad, that the backlash will be more than they ever could have imagined"
If the wolf rider is tossed, the SSS crowd will go crazy in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. I believe in the rule of law and sincerely hope that this does not happen.

 

[sweetnectar]

Here's a little news article on Molloy a little while back for anyone wanting a little more back ground on him.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f0daf2db-6a1f-5dfd-ba99-464f31168c98.html

 

[Mudranger1]

mdunc8,
I believe FRCP 24 governs where individuals or groups, not parties to the actual litigation, seek to intervene in a lawsuit. In this case, I believe the sportsman's groups would be identified as permissive intervenors. The claim would be that they, through their members, have an actual interest that may be adversely affected by the outcome of the pending litigation. The judge has the discretion to allow them to join in or not. Usually an intervenor is concerned that the party defendant (in this case the federal government) may not raise all the issues and arguments necessary to resolve the litigation in a way that is satisfactory to the intervenors. In some instances, the interest of the U.S. government may not be as strong as the interests of the states involved or those who will be actually affected by a judicial decision (sportsman, ranchers). I would think that some livestock organizations are seeking to intervene in the lawsuit. I believe that the State of Idaho has joined in the lawsuit. Personally, I am not persuaded that the current administration is all that interested in a favorable outcome for wolf delisting. The two politicians that blocked stand alone legislation on wolf delisting were Senators Ben Cardon (D) of Maryland and Barbara Boxer (D) California. Last time I checked there were no wolves in either of those states. At the risk of sounding like a basher of the Democratic Party, many constituents of that party are the same eco-elite groups filing these lawsuits. Those eco-elite groups have a lot of money to donate in the political process. Denying intervenor status to sportsman's groups seems questionable to me when contrasted with many of the plaintiff groups that filed the latest lawsuit challenging the "wolf rider". Many of the eco-elite (I prefer that term over enivronmentalist) groups may be from states that have no direct interest in the wolf issue. The groups may have few if any members who actually live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. I believe that allowing the sportsman's groups, ranchers and the states as intervenors is an issue of fairness. However, ultimately it will be in the discretion of Judge Malloy to allow these groups in.
Again, I know that many on various hunting forums are not happy with SFW, MDF, BGF, NRA, SCI for the way they handled the "wolf rider' but I would think that sportsman's groups should have a voice in the litigation.

now normally I am in no way shape or form a fan of lawyers but I like your response mighty...I'd buy that for a dollar!:hump:

 

[Ben Lamb]

Personally, I am not persuaded that the current administration is all that interested in a favorable outcome for wolf delisting.

The current administration issued the 2009 delisting rule for the NRM, and they just reissued the delisting rule for the Great Lakes. I'd also point out that Sec. Salazar's advisor for the NW is former FWP Commission chairman Steve Doherty. I can honestly say that the administration is set on delisting wolf populations that have been recovered.

Cardin and Boxer are in hotbeds of enviro membership to be sure, and they also have farther left leaning tendencies that Marx or Dink. But I would note that it was Tester who sponsored the bill that ultimately passed, and Baucus did yeoman's work behind the scenes to keep it on the rails. Simpson of Idaho added the best touch w/ the judicial shield and together, they moved this thing though. They did not have the blessing of the Admin, but they also did not have to fight them on Simpson-Tester. Also, Defenders of Wildlife has about 5,000 members in MT, as does the World Wildlife Fund, NRDC and GYC has about 15,000 members overall, with about 1/3 of that in state. So, there is a big block of left voting folks who were not happy with the Senators from MT for pushing this through.

 

[mdunc8]

Thanks for the explanation Mighty. Makes sense now.

 

[mightyhunter]

I have read online that the State of Idaho was also denied intervenor status by Judge Molloy this month. I have not been able to confirm this. If this is the case, that is a very interesting development.
Ben Lamb mentions that the Defenders of Wildlife have over 5,000 members in MT. That may be true. However, the Defenders of Wildlife are not a party to the current Alliance for for Wild Rockies wolf lawsuit filed in May 2011 that challenges the "wolf rider". They were one of the groups who sought but failed to reach approval of a settlement delisting the wolf through Judge Molloy's court before the "wolf rider" passed. It is also my understanding that at one time, The Defenders of Wildlife would provide membership in its organization to people who donated to the Max Baucus campaign fund. The head man at Defenders of Wildlife (RS) is the former chief of staff for Max Baucus. I believe that the Defenders of Wildlife realized, albeit a little late, that compromise was necessary on the wolf issue to avoid the situation mentioned by Big Fin in his earlier post.
With regards to Jon Tester and the wolf issue there is a mix of opinion. The wolf rider was also known as the Simpson-Tester rider. Many folks think, and I am one of those, that Senator Tester had no choice but to jump into the wolf fray if he wanted to be re-elected in 2012. He and Max Baucus did not support the stand alone legislation that would have delisted the wolf in a more expansive way. It is my opinion that Tester will be in trouble politically in 2012 should Judge Molloy rule that the "wolf rider" violated the separation of powers doctrine. Anyone who suggests that the wolf issue is not a political hot potato is just kidding themselves. I stand by my statement that the current administration is not all that invested in wolf delisting. I would say that they are passive at best on the issue. That is why I would like to see sportsman's groups and others allowed as intervenors in the lawsuit.
Perhaps Judge Molloy will surprise many of us and find against the eco-elite plaintiffs in 9:2011 CV 00070. Only time will tell.

 

[sweetnectar]

That's some interesting info.
When you said that

The head man at Defenders of Wildlife (RS) is the former chief of staff for Max Baucus.

It got me thinking. I wonder if the head man at Defender of Wildlife was what gave the push for Molloy's appointment years ago.

Molloy was appointed to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 in consultation with Sen. Max Baucus. At the time, Molloy had a private civil practice in Billings.

Who knows which way it will go now????

 

[mightyhunter]

sweetnectar,
Rodger Schlickeisen has been the President and CEO of the Defenders of Wildlife since 1991. He was the chief of staff for Max Baucus at one time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It is also my understanding that at one time, The Defenders of Wildlife would provide membership in its organization to people who donated to the Max Baucus campaign fund. The head man at Defenders of Wildlife (RS) is the former chief of staff for Max Baucus.

If they did this, then I'm pretty sure that is illegal. If it can be proven, then it needs to be brought to the attention of the IRS. It is a pretty big accusation to level against any organization as it would put their 501 (C)3 status at severe risk. I'm no fan of DOW, but if we start saying things like this, then we need to have the information solidly in place.

The head man at Defenders of Wildlife (RS) is the former chief of staff for Max Baucus. I believe that the Defenders of Wildlife realized, albeit a little late, that compromise was necessary on the wolf issue to avoid the situation mentioned by Big Fin in his earlier post.

They, and many other groups, realized that the lawsuits went too far, and that they were on the losing end of the gambit. They tried to get a settlement through, but it was rejected (rightfully so) by Judge Molloy. As far as the current CEO of DOW being a former COS for Baucus, I don't see a lot of love for Defenders in Baucus' office. I work with that staff fairly regularly on issues such as LWCF and other conservation and wildlife bills and they never carry any far left/animal rights bills.

With regards to Jon Tester and the wolf issue there is a mix of opinion. The wolf rider was also known as the Simpson-Tester rider. Many folks think, and I am one of those, that Senator Tester had no choice but to jump into the wolf fray if he wanted to be re-elected in 2012. He and Max Baucus did not support the stand alone legislation that would have delisted the wolf in a more expansive way. It is my opinion that Tester will be in trouble politically in 2012 should Judge Molloy rule that the "wolf rider" violated the separation of powers doctrine. Anyone who suggests that the wolf issue is not a political hot potato is just kidding themselves.

I know the Senator. I know his voting record for sportsmen when he was in the MT Senate, and I know his voting record for sportsmen since he's been in DC. To think that this was just about politics is wrong. He get's this issue incredibly well. MWF was working with both Senator Tester and Senator Baucus, as well as meeting with Congressman Rehberg as soon as August 6th, 2010 to discuss ways to fix this issue. Only Senators Baucus and Tester were willing to take an approach that would be viable on the political scale. It wasn't far enough to the right for a lot of groups, but it was the only salable way to do this. BTW - Don Peay says on Monster Muleys that the lawsuits have no chance, in your thread I believe.

As for the stand alone legislation, it would have never made it out of the Senate. Boxer, the chairwoman of EPW (the committee it would have to go through) would not let it come up. Politically, it wasn't going to happen. If the Rider is tossed, then there is more political will to do something further reaching, as Randy said. Whether that's EAJA reform or something else I'm not sure.

As for Alliance, they're losing it. They've had a big setback with a lawsuit regarding hazing of Bison and Grizzly Bears. Their lawsuits get more desperate the less standing they really have.

 

[mightyhunter]

Ben Lamb,
There may be much that we agree upon and much that we do not. I do not know Don Peay and am not involved with SFW. I don't believe I have ever quoted him. The way all of this was handled soured me permanently on SFW, BGF, MDF and others. I belong to no eco-elite groups. It is obvious that you are close to Tester and also to Baucus. Maybe you should ask Baucus if at any time did a campaign contribution for him get someone membership in the DOW. If it didn't, there are lots of online sources that have posted this fact inaccurately. Perhaps, Baucus and the CEO of DOW have no working relationship of any kind.
I have lived in NW Wyoming for the last 11 years. Prior to that, I lived in Idaho for 27 years. I am not an insider and do not share the same opinion of either Montana Senator that you do. I am also not a huge fan of Representative Rehberg. I believe that Tester had to do something on the wolf issue or be seen as another Democrat walking in lockstep with the current administration. Whether that was political or not will be a decision that others will have to make. If he was so involved in the wolf delisting process, why did he jump in so late?
You have a lot of faith in Federal District Judge Donald Molloy. You claim that he should not be vilified for the decision he made that relisted the wolf and stopped the wolf hunts. You obviously think he made the right decision on the relisting under the ESA. Challenging a judge's opinion and viIifying him are two different things. To suggest that he could only have decided one way, is contrary to any legal process and reasoning that I am familiar with. Federal District Judges are appointed for life. It is a partisan process when they are confirmed. Max Baucus recommendeded Molloy and Clinton appointed him.
EXAMPLE: Right now there are at least 4 decisions in Federal District Court challenging Obamacare. Two judges found it constitutional and two did not. Those who found in favor are Democratic appointees and the two who found against are Republican. Don't kid yourself into thinking that politics have no bearing in judicial opinions. That is nonsense. Our federal judiciary is as polarized politically as it can be. Just look at the current U.S. Supreme Court. By the way, Federal District Judge Johnson from Wyoming found against the federal government in his recent ruling concerning wolf predator zones and trophy zones under the ESA. He was a Republican appointee. Do you share the same opinion of his decision that you do of Judge Molloys?
If not, why not?
There is way too much litigation going on with the ESA. The court system is bogged down with environmental lawsuits. They take forever to be finally resolved. When you couple this with all the money being raised by both eco-elite groups and by sportsman's groups you have a recipe for political partisanship that corrupts the whole process. Hopefully, you and I can at least agree on that point.
I have faith in or political system. But that does not make me believe that everyone involved in the process has the best of intentions.