05 Jun 1993 03:56:53

> Um, as a just-graduated environmental lawyer (so take this with
> the requisite grain of salt) judging from what the government has
> done in the past, in such a case they would move to consolidate
> all the 15,000 claims and that motion would be granted. Venue
> would probably be moved to Washington, D.C., too. So rather than
> dragging them down, this would be a minor irritation to them.
> The closest incident on record is a guy who went around filing
> mining claims, trying to stop development -- because he would
> challenge any *valid* claim that someone made (you have to be
> actually on the land doing work to file a mining claim; he
> wasn't). Finally, when the feds wanted to build a dam or
> something, this guy brought a couple thousand claims, each one
> based on one of his mining claims, hoping of course to force the
> government to defend each separate claim. The gov't moved to
> consolidate, and it was granted, and then the claims were, in one
> bundle, summarily invalidated. (The guy also wanted to force the
> gov't to go through its usual slow administrative channels before
> going to court; but the court held that the gov't had the
> prerogative to go straight to court. The whole thing was over
> very quickly).
> Not to put a wet blanket on the idea, but .... maybe we *do*
> need at least one Perry Mason. You guys know Brian Michaels here
> in Eugene? Rainbow lawyer?
> Marianne

Back to the Top Level: