RobG
Well-known member
Whatever you are using to justify your claim. I don't think you have access to that data.
Simpson vs Labrador
- Thread starter 6speed
- Start date
Whatever you are using to justify your claim. I don't think you have access to that data.
A smart guy like you knows that information is available on the Form 990 filed with the IRS,
Here are links to both entities Form 990.
RMEF - http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/2014 RMEF Inc 990.pdf
CBD - http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/support/pdfs/CenterForBiologicalDiversit IncForm990_2014.pdf
Depending on the year, RMEF has 3-5X the revenues of CBD. Depending upon the year, RMEF has 2-3X the net assets of CBD.
RMEF has one attorney on staff who is charged with internal legal issues. CBD has 40+ attorneys on staff. A case could be made that a group with 40+ attorneys on staff would be looked at as a law firm, not a non-profit group, and as such, they should be paying UBT on their profits from their activities, as they are competing with other "for profit entities" for work.
Please clarify what you mean by that. I'll respond when I return from the doc.
Randy,
In no way am I insinuating that RMEF is working with Mountain States Legal Foundation or Karen Budd-Falen on the issue, but this is where a lot of the information regarding EAJA comes from, and a lot of their data is very, very flawed. These have been the leading voices, along with the industries they represent, to eliminate or gut EAJA in the past.
http://buddfalen.com/practice-areas/eaja-attorney-fee-payments/
In no way am I insinuating that RMEF is working with Mountain States Legal Foundation or Karen Budd-Falen on the issue, but this is where a lot of the information regarding EAJA comes from, and a lot of their data is very, very flawed. These have been the leading voices, along with the industries they represent, to eliminate or gut EAJA in the past.
http://buddfalen.com/practice-areas/eaja-attorney-fee-payments/
RobG
Well-known member
Yes, I read the 990s or I wouldn't have asked. And I will note you avoided directly answering the question... David makes more than the CBD CEO and RMEF has quite a bit more assets. I'm just trying to offer some perspective on what a "highly profitable cottage industry" is.
I don't like much of what CBD does (I did like that they brought the Bundy case to a head), but preventing them (and others) from doing it is going to have a lot of irreversible unintended consequences. The people who want to reform EAJA are not our friends, but they will sure be glad to pretend they are.
RobG
Well-known member
LOL, I guess I was overly broad on that statement.
I would also like to see it reformed, but the fact is there is not much you can do. Putting a size cap would simply break up the bigger guys, and they are by no means the only ones suing. The only way to stop this without killing the citizens' voice is to give the agencies enough money that they do the proposals correctly.
And again, I think you have to be careful how you structure that. I'm not opposed to it for organizations that have a large stockpile of cash or other assets, but in reality, the worst litigators have almost nothing in terms of assets or capitol to work with. How do you get blood from a turnip? Wild West Institute as far as I can tell is a few volunteers, a P.O. box and an empty bank account.
CBD, Defenders, et al get the lion's share of the blame for lawsuits and EAJA settlements, but groups like Alliance for the Wild Rockies do more damage to good projects, but wouldn't be touched by the spate of reforms currently put forward.
Which is why I think it's important to look beyond EAJA, and to the processes that could be streamlined and create less opportunity for the serial litigants.
"Correctly" is all to often redefined when it comes to NEPA...LOL, I guess I was overly broad on that statement.
The only way to stop this without killing the citizens' voice is to give the agencies enough money that they do the proposals correctly.
I'm fine with careful structuring of it. I am over being fine with the only one side having to write a check when they lose.
Making that association is like saying GYC is part of the terrorist actions of the Earth Liberation Front. Hardly a reasonable comparison to say GYC is such. By casting and associating anyone with a differing opinion as being part of the fringe, takes away any possibility for reasonable discussion. It implies that nobody can have reasonable thoughts on a topic without being discounted as part of the crazy fringe.
Or, can there no longer be reasonable discussion? And, must everyone be lumped into the further fringe on each side of a topic? I sure hope not.
If guilt by some very disconnected association is the best defense and most valid criticism against those who have finally tired of the gridlock, the argument for status quo is on far shakier ground than I would have expected.
Really? Tweaks to the EAJA is going to prevent people from litigating? Explain how changing small items takes away the right of any party to sue. You and I both know that is BS. I would ask you explain how CBD or ABC or XYZ would no longer be allowed to file suit if small changes were made to the EAJA.
As for your last line, I guess I should change my Hunt Talk handle to "The Great Pretender."
Carry on .....
That's not what I was saying, regarding RMEF. Apologies if it came across that way. I was providing some context for the skepticism that exists on the issue. I do think RMEF has done a great service to bring the issue forward, and I'm certainly open to discussing ways to better imrpove public land management. The rub with me is that I've yet to see anything other than Lummis' restoration of reporting requirements that had a chance of passage, or that actually address the underlying issue that lead to the litigation impasse.
I'm always happy to talk things through, you know that. I trust RMEF's judgement on most things, but I also have been doing this long enough to question everyone, even my friends.
How simplified do you want it?
CBD pays their highest paid staff attorney about $75 per hour based on their 990 that shows highest compensated employees. The minimum reimbursement rate right now for their attorneys under EAJA is $175 per hour. A minimum of $100 profit for every hour that can be justified the person worked on a claim for EAJA reimbursement. The lower paid employees represent an even higher profit margin. The courts that allow even higher reimbursement rates also represent an even higher profit margin.
As far as specific cases, you are correct to some degree, as the cases are sealed. Not even the GOA can get the exact information.
I just read the settlement case with the USFWS and CBD on Mexican Wolves from last week. The settlement is about two pages and the request for reimbursement under EAJA is about 6 pages, none of which have the specific dollar amounts of the reimbursement claim.
To flip the discussion to the other side, if your implied assumption is true, that this is not a profitable cottage industry, then why should any reform in reimburse procedures be worth the big fight being made by those seeking the reimbursement. If it truly is immaterial to their operation and does not help fund their legal staff and litigation efforts, then why the big fuss. Seems like a bad sword to fall on if this is such an insignificant part of the overall discussion, Yes?
RobG
Well-known member
No Randy, you didn't read what I said. The tweaks you suggest aren't going to stop people from bringing forward these annoying lawsuits- that was my point.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
You aren't seriously suggesting that $100 is "profit." Is everything your firm charges me above the CPA's salary profit? No, not even close. And if that $75/hr attorney is the highest paid employee who is getting this extra $100 profit? Why isn't he/she listed on the 990?
Yes, this is a business, just like RMEF, but an attorney working for $75/hour is giving up a lot of potential income. Even $175/hour is low, extemely low if you consider they don't have a 100% win rate. I guess that is one big problem I have with the your profit argument - these people could make a lot more money working elsewhere.
As far as your last comment, maybe Ben and I should change our sigs to "EAJA profiteers."
That is their choice to work where they do, for what pay they get, and what opportunity cost they choose. Last I checked, the US Taxpayer did not owe every environmental a living. None of them I know are in the streets seeking handouts. I admire that they might do what they feel is rewarding work. That said, they have made that decision with eyes wide open.
You know what attorneys make as employees? They don't make $175 per hour. We do a lot of tax returns for attorneys and their firms. At $75 per hour, the CBD attorney listed on the Form 990 is doing very well for an employee-attorney position. If they wanted to go out on their own, hire staff, drum up their own business, fund their own working capital, and take all the business risks, they might make a lot more, but that is far different than an employee who gets to "hit the files" with some billable hours and then go home.
As for how professional firm billings are structured, it is usually the rule of thirds. 1/3 allocated to employee salary/benefits, 1/3 to overhead, 1/3 to profit.
CBD is already skirting on the fringe of some tax code designed to keep non-profits as non-profits. It's called Unrelated Business Taxable Income rules. UBTI is income that you make that would be considered a profit-motive activity that competes with other for-profit businesses. A very good case could be made the CBD is competing with law firms for business in the environmental litigation arena and their reimbursements from EAJA should be considered EBTI.
You are the one who used the term "EAJA profiteer." Make of it what you want, Rob. If you refuse to believe that their is any profit centers coming from reimbursements under EAJA, then we will disagree.
And if you think the concentration of judicial/legal control is not amplified by the litigation incentives provided by EAJA, then we can disagree on that, also.
And lastly, if you think the EAJA litigation incentives are not a disincentive for collaboration and cooperation, then our disagreement is every wider. Right now, these groups doing most of the litigation have no incentive to collaborate or compromise when the process starts. They refuse, then wait to see what comes of the people they view as fools for collaborating, knowing they have the incentives to litigate no matter what the collaborators come up with.
Those who engage in collaboration in the beginning, and there are folks on both sides who try their damnedest to collaborate, are made fools of by this litigation, not matter which side it comes from. And you only get burned in your collaborative efforts a few times before you finally say Eff it and you walk away from the table. That situation is huge amplified by much of the litigation landscape, including EAJA. Those who benefit financial or from the perspective of "getting their way" find the current process just fine. I don't blame them. But, I sure don't agree with it and I am an advocate for trying to seek some reasonable change, which is not merely a focus on reimbursement and financial incentives.
Carry on ....
RobG
Well-known member
Randy, I know all of that already and agree it stinks, but, besides cutting into your own original arguments about "very profitable cottage industries," it is irrelevant. You can't remove the nuisance lawsuits without cutting into the legitimate suits. Putting restrictions on who can sue is only going to hinder the little guy who is not clever enough to circumvent them. Either that, or the restrictions become so strong nobody but huge money can sue. It sucks, but that is the way it is.
The only way a group can make money on EAJA is if the government didn't follow the law. Should we allow the huge money that influences government policy to decide which laws to follow? I don't think so. You either have to change the law to be easier to follow or give the agencies enough money to do it right.
The only way a group can make money on EAJA is if the government didn't follow the law. Should we allow the huge money that influences government policy to decide which laws to follow? I don't think so. You either have to change the law to be easier to follow or give the agencies enough money to do it right.
I asked earlier and I ask again, "What, in the tweaks mentioned, would restrict who could sue or eliminate the ability for a person/group to sue?" Please explain. As far as I can see, nobody would be restricted in suing.
You seem to be implying that you cannot sue if you can't get subsidized for doing so? If your non-profit mission is to advocate for the issues under which you bring a lawsuit, why does one need government payment to do what a groups states it's mission to be? Seems that would be a legitimate use of the tens of millions in donor dollars who supposedly believe in that cause, as is the case for HSUS, CBD, etc.
I don't buy into that premise. If you do, that's fine.
RobG
Well-known member
I answered earlier and I'll answer again: "No Randy, you didn't read what I said. The tweaks you suggest aren't going to stop people from bringing forward these annoying lawsuits- that was my point."
But this leads to the question of why you would risk losing your voice in wildlife to make changes that won't stop the annoying lawsuits? You can be sure the decision makers are more interested in removing the barriers into exploiting roadless areas or just grazing/drilling the pee out of prairie habitat. Those folks aren't our friends.
Similar threads
