 | |||
 |
|
|
|
|
February 27, 2006 |
|||
|
Archives |
BORever Mob Declares War! TO: Pleasure Cove Families FROM: Oscar Braun, General, California Watershed Posse RE: USA v.Murad et al., U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.) Some permittees, but not all permittees, have received court documents through regular U.S. Mail during the past few days from the U.S. Attorney, BOR’s counsel, pertaining to a complaint filed by the government against the remaining permittees at Pleasure Cove. The purpose of this CWP Flash Alert is to provide Pleasure Cove Permittee Families with information to assess and understand BOR’s action in filing the complaint and the legal procedures and process that follows the initiation of a lawsuit. This review process will also assist in evaluating available legal and practical options that permittees should take into consideration in order to achieve a resolution of the pending issues and on going dispute at Pleasure Cove. The U.S. Attorney mailed, without the issuance and service of formal summons, the following documents to Pleasure Cove Permittee Families: • Complaint for ejectment, trespass, injunctive relief, and damages (filed on February 22, 2006, without the issuance and service of formal summons); First, it is safe to say that no one enjoys to be named as a defendant in any lawsuit, especially involving a complaint filed by the U.S. government. Please remember that our nation’s system of law and jurisprudence provides everyone with the legal right to stand up, question and challenge actions taken by government officials under the color of legal authority. In this particular case, the government actions involve questionable BOR actions and conduct at Pleasure Cove. The mere fact that Pleasure Cove Permittee Families have taken a principled stand against BOR and the matter is now the subject of a court case seeking judicial review and action does not reflect unfavorably against individual permittees as good law-abiding citizens. In fact, the converse is true: the Pleasure Cove Permittee Families are exercising their legal right to stand together to question and challenge BOR’s actions.
After the initial shock of receiving the mailed legal documents from the U.S. Attorney, which is understandable, Pleasure Cove Permittee Families need to understand the significance of BOR’s action in filing the complaint and court deadlines involved in the case. Step back, take a deep breath and carefully review your legal and practical options as Pleasure Cove Permittees Family. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR URGENT IMMEDIATE ACTION AT THIS TIME. PLEASE CAREFULLY READ AND CONSIDER THE APPLICABLE COURT DEADLINES. The following are the applicable time deadlines in the lawsuit based on the on fact that BOR filed the complaint but did not have summons issued and complete formal service of process on the named Pleasure Cove permittees: • The voluntary Waiver of Service of Summons (blank form), if a decision is made by a permittee to voluntarily date and sign the document, must be returned within 30 days after February 23, 2006 (date of notice), which is March 25, 2006, but since that date falls on a Saturday, the legal return date is Monday, March 27, 2006. (FRCP 6 and FRCP 12);
Based on the court deadlines noted above and the time required by the realities and the requirements of the legal process, Pleasure Cove permittees have sufficient time to carefully review and contemplate available legal and practical options in response to BOR’s complaint and the legal process. After the time sensitive dates for returning the Waiver of Service of Summons form (March 27, 2006) and serving an answer to the complaint (April 24, 2006), the legal process will take time as reflected by the dates in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (beginning in June 2006). There is a possibility that BOR may make court motions during the pending case but court rules and procedures require compliance with notice and time requirements. In the absence of a court order prohibiting or restricting access and use (i.e. retraining order or injunction), BOR lacks authority to prematurely take unilateral action against Pleasure Cove permittees during the pending lawsuit. Practically speaking, this means that BOR cannot prohibit or restrict access and use of permittee sites or order the relocation or removal of mobilehomes and personal property from Pleasure Cove until there is an appropriate court order or settlement in the case.
Each permittee family must carefully assess their own personal situation at Lake Berryessa, taking into consideration such factors as the condition, age, mobility and value of their mobilehomes and personal property, the time requirement, effort and cost to relocate or remove their mobilehomes and personal property, and their commitment to maintain recreational opportunities as long-term permittees at Pleasure Cove. Awaiting the issuance of BOR’s ROD for the 2005 VSP, permittee families at Lake Berryessa’s seven resorts have relied in good faith on the fact that concessionaires have contracts until 2008/2009. But for the untimely and unexpected death of former concessionaire, Richard DeLooze, Pleasure Cove Resort permittees had the same expectation until BOR unilaterally mandated the early termination date of December 2005. The following are some of the scenarios currently taking place, planned or already undertaken by permittees as confirmed by sources at Pleasure Cove: • It is my understanding that a few permittees will be permitted by BOR/Forever Resorts to retain their Pleasure Cove permittee sites because of unique circumstances (e.g. Scott Jenkins is now an employee of Forever Resorts and his family will be allowed to retain their permittee site under a concessionaire exemption; Because of his age and health condition, I have received information that Eric McDonald has been granted permission to retain his permittee site; If the foregoing are true, it is puzzling why BOR named these permittees as defendants in the complaint.); In assessing the available legal and practical options facing Pleasure Cove Permitees Families, I find that the old saying “bad news often brings good news” may be applicable in this case. Remember, according to BOR’s (drop dead dates) plan and dictatorial mandate the Pleasure Cove permittees site termination date was November 1, 2005 and the removal date for mobilehomes and personal property was December 15, 2005. It is now a few days before March 2006, and with BOR’s filing of the complaint (after the legal battle with the Brauns, which was decided on a jurisdictional issue and did not affect the other Pleasure Cove Permittee Families), there is no legal order or ruling to eject (i.e. remove or evict) the remaining Pleasure Cove Permittee Families in sight for months. According to the current court calendar schedule, it will likely be several months before the court will be able to appropriately address legal issues in the case. (It should be noted that this case has been assigned to a different judge.). Based on the current-status of BOR’s case, permittees will have sufficient time to make a reasoned decision and plan accordingly in response to BOR’s actions at Pleasure Cove. In the meantime, the court of public and political opinion will be assessing BOR’s anticipated action in adopting the controversial and hotly debated ROD for the 2005 VSP.
The following are some of my thoughts regarding legal options available to the remaining Pleasure Cove Permittee Families: 1. Each Pleasure Cove Permittee Families must carefully assess their own situation as previously noted; Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need further information regarding this CWP Flash Alert. Oscar Braun Pray For Cody, Scott & Kathy -----Original Message----- Long term Pleasure Cove Permittee Family, Scott & Kathy Jenkins recently learned that their only son Cody, aged 14, has Leukemia. Cody is at present undergoing cemoatheraphy treatment. We ask you all to include Cody in your prayers.
| ||