For help on how to follow a comic title,
I’m not aware of any such chicanery in these parts, but I believe you. What is common up here is anti-development activists trying to obstruct by alleging they witnessed a protected species or actually planting a turtle or some such thing on the property (while trespassing, mind you) and taking a picture. Typically it’s an abutter who doesn’t want to see the land developed into housing even though they were happy to have the adjacent land developed for their house. Pulling up the ladder, so to speak. Nice people.
I’ll tell you all what…I have a client for who I need to file about $15k worth of forms with USF&WS and The Mass Heritage program through MESA within the next 2 weeks for a small development (12 residential units) that contains no habitat for anything listed with either. This will cost my client between $55-60k and at least 6 months by the time we’re done and can proceed, if all goes well. Additional review determination will double that or more. I really have lots of stuff on my plate right now so please let me know which of you experts would like to handle this for me. Thanks.
The bald eagle is still protected just as it was prior to the rule changes. It’s habitat is also still protected. The same goes for every other species. The new rules change the processes for adding and removing critters to and from the various lists and how they move up or down those lists, either increasing or decreasing their protected status. The same people will be still using the same criteria in making these determinations so there will be no removal of species from any list that shouldn’t be.
Neither of those things has happened.
Very few people actually understand the ESA and it’s various rules that many states pile on top of it. When my clients are required to install “turtle tunnels” in a subdivision and monitor them with cameras in perpetuity for a turtle that is not anywhere close to being listed as endangered or of critical concern, it’s obvious that the program is being abused. I think it’s high time somebody did something about this brand of overreach.
I’m pushing 60 so I’ve done quite a bit in my career. I’ve been on the prosecutorial (mostly white collar MA DA office) and defense side (mostly fed courts working for larger firms) and even spent time in DC working for a National Trade association and did a short stint working for a Bar Association as program director, the chief benefit of which was getting all my CLE units done conveniently and free of charge. About 5 years ago I left the big firm and went to work with a friend in a small firm. 3 senior attorneys, only 2 associates and several other staffers. I now mostly do land-use work and rarely have to go to court anymore, which is a nice change. I have sued a couple municipalities and am proud to say we also sued the EPA and won. I sometimes teach seminars through the bar association, mostly on environmental law. Previously I did the same but for various aspects of constitutional law. I’ve only been involved in one suit that actually went all the way to the Supreme Court of the US. We won at every step of the lower courts (6 of 6 circuit courts sided with us) but lost when SCOTUS issued a bad decision. But it was a unique experience.
Like you, I am happy to defer to somebody’s expertise where I have little or none. Learning from others. Talking to people like twclix is frustrating because he/she just wants to demonize everyone who doesn’t share his/her view. Too many people simply get their opinion handed to them from sources that agree with them and it becomes established, incontrovertible fact even though much of it is opinion or selective facts that ignore the whole picture.
Stoners love their conspiracy theories :)
I’m not a fan of trump. I wouldn’t vote for him at gun point and I mean that literally.
Your assertion that trump actively accepted Russian meddling in our election is where your argument falls apart. That’s not true, according to the investigation, and that’s where intent lies. Prosecutors, if obstruction even goes to court, would have an uphill burden to prove intent, there as well. Legally, it’s not as cut and dry as you seem to think. By the way, speaking of political motivation, at least some of the 1000 fed prosecutors you reference, are very politically motivated democrats. Much like yourself. My view is based on truth within the law. I’m a conservative but I’m not a republican. They tossed me over years ago.
I’m an attorney. I’ve reviewed the report from that perspective and discussed it with a number of other attorneys including a couple who have worked within the DOJ in the past and still have relationships there. I’ve also read several legal reviews provided through the MA Bar Association that provide excellent LEGAL analysis, NOT political opinion. My legal expertise, that of those I mentioned above and the various legal opinions I have access to, all of which agree on the larger points, disagree with you. But please, keep giving me your inexpert politically biased opinion, none of which was obtained through independent thought, but rather absorbed by politically like-minded “sources” …maybe I’ll change my mind.
The negativity was rampant, too. If any of the viable candidates decides to go positive I believe it would help them.