SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

North Bay / Marin | Environment & Forest Defense

Perjury Abounds in Tomales Bay Oyster Company Lawsuit
by Save Our Seashore
Thursday Sep 4th, 2014 9:42 AM
In a new lawsuit, Drakes Bay Oyster Company's industry allies, including Tomales Bay Oyster Company, have committed numerous instances of perjury by withholding relevant information and materially misinforming the Court in order to manufacture their bogus claims of economic harm due to the closure DBOC. Additionally, numerous restaurants joining the TBOC lawsuit withheld relevant, self-produced information that directly undercuts their manufactured claims of economic harm.
PERJURY ABOUNDS IN TOMALES BAY OYSTER COMPANY LAWSUIT

Tomales Bay Oyster Company filed a new lawsuit in the ongoing attempt to prevent the long-planned closure of Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) rather than allow the restoration of Drakes Estero Wilderness. DBOC, which has made millions of dollars rent-free off public lands since its lease expired in 2012, lost its last attempt to continue operating on June 30th when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected its appeal.

In the new lawsuit, Drakes Bay’s industry allies, including Tomales Bay Oyster Company (TBOC), have committed numerous instances of perjury by withholding relevant information and materially misinforming the Court in order to manufacture their bogus claims of economic harm due to the closure DBOC. Additionally, numerous restaurants joining the TBOC lawsuit withheld relevant, self-produced information that directly undercuts their manufactured claims of economic harm.

"Conservative groups have attempted to portray this as a David and Goliath story— that of a small-time business owner struggling to stay alive amid the punishing and capricious dictates of a federal bureaucracy. Baloney. This is becoming a parody of modern politics.” "Truth on the Half Shell,” Santa Rosa Press-Democrat editorial, May 13, 2013

1. DBOC’s industry ally, Tomales Bay Oyster Company, withheld information from the Court that it has substantially increased production to far more than replace DBOC’s “irreplaceable” oysters. (see HERE for details)

     A. Tomales Bay Oyster Company plans to increase production by as much as nearly 1,000% and more than replace DBOC oysters.

     B. DBOC’s closure and new suppliers will increase oyster seeds available to Tomales Bay Oyster Company and more than replace DBOC oysters.

     C. Tomales Bay Oyster Company has more than enough inventory to cover temporary closures and replace DBOC oysters.

2. Tomales Bay Oyster Company withheld information from the Court that its claimed “lost sales” are actually unauthorized sales only made possible by TBOC’s multiple permit violations. (see HERE for details)

     A. Tomales Bay Oyster Company violates its rural hours of operation, illegally inflating sales that create a false “need” to buy extra DBOC oysters.

     B. Tomales Bay Oyster Company’s life-threatening parking illegally inflates sales that create a false “need” to buy DBOC oysters.

     C. Tomales Bay Oyster Company violates its rural farmstand permit that allows it to sell only its own oysters and thus there is no “need” to buy DBOC oysters.

3. Dixon Marine withheld information from the Court that Drakes Bay’s “irreplaceable” oyster shells are actually not “needed” for the Living Shoreline Project. (see HERE for details)

     A. Dixon fails to disclose that there are alternative suppliers for oyster shells.

     B. Dixon fails to disclose that the cost of DBOC’s donated non-native oyster shell is trivial.

     C. Dixon fails to disclose that native oyster shell is preferred.

     D. Dixon fails to disclose that the same species of oysters that DBOC grows is considered a threat to SF Bay.

4. The Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture in Marin (ALSA) has materially misinformed the Court, including exaggerating Drakes Bay’s importance and withholding information about Drakes Bay’s impacts on surrounding ranches. (see HERE for details)

     A. ALSA fails to disclose that its claims to be an “environmental” organization are based on false and misleading information.

     B. ALSA fails to disclose that its statistical claims about the Drakes Bay Oyster Company are consistently false based on public records.

     C. ALSA fails to disclose that its claims about impact to ranches surrounding Drakes Bay are the reverse of what ALSA claims.

5. Various restaurants all claim harm from the closure of DBOC, yet fail to disclose to the Court that their menus are broad and flexible. (see HERE for details)

     A. Sir and Star restaurant prides itself on menu that “change[s] with the season and what is available,” so the claimed dependence on Drakes Bay oysters is an exaggeration.

     B. Other restaurants fail to disclose that their menus include shellfish from thousands of miles away, so their claimed dependence on local Drakes Bay oysters is an exaggeration.

The full document can be viewed by clicking HERE