The MLPA Initiative's Motion to Quash

http://noyonews.net

The MLPA Initiative's Motion to Quash

by David Gurney

The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative's “Motion to Quash” was heard in Mendocino County Superior Court yesterday, May 20, 2011, before visiting judge Andrea Richey from Southern California. The Hon. John Behnke was scheduled to rule on the case, but reportedly left on a last minute vacation.

Program Manager Ms. Melissa Miller-Henson and the MLPAI had earlier this year declined service of documents on four seperate occasions, in an attempt to avoid legal responsibility for actions during the two-year North Coast process.

The quash motion calls for the Initiative's nine-person staff of officers, state employees, and private contractors to be dismissed from the lawsuit, and excused from any accountability on the grounds they were "not a legal organization."

Their Motion to Quash affidavit contains a declaration by Miller-Henson that the so-called Initiative was “the name of a project or a set of objectives, and not a formal organization or state agency, it is not incorporated, it has no officers, and it has no members or associates.”

It goes on to state in their view that "the MLPAI 'Initiative' was not recognized as a legal entity…. Is not an association at all, it has no members or officers, it is not incorporated, is not a state agency, and it is not a seperate entity."

Representing this "nonentity"was the California Deputy Attorney General David W. Hamilton. In his brief statement, Hamilton argued that MLPAI "is part of a partnership that's responsible for a program - the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative - but the Initiative itself is just the name for a program and not an agency or legal entity that can be sued."

His argument is belied by the fact that the MLPA "Initiative" hired private contractors and consulting firms, planned, promoted and held public meetings, engaged professional video services, facilitated accounts for travel, hotel rooms and meals, responded to public records act requests, engaged in federal level negotiations with tribes, and did a host of other highly sophisticated organizational, political and public relations duties, all supposedly on behalf of the people of California.

Peter Martin, the lawyer for the plaintiff in this case, argued that the MLPAI was, among other things, part of a partnership - of not only two state agencies, but also including a private foundation - the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, which provided the majority of funding for the private/public venture.

According to Martin, "the MLPAI was the legal entity that represented this partnership and as such, was responsible for doing all kinds of things. The MLPAI was legally responsible for implementing the Marine Life Protection Act, and as a group they planned, promoted and held public meetings. They responded to Public Records Acts, they had a purpose, they had goals, and they had an Executive Director, and a Program Manager."

Martin went on: "the MLPAI does everything - and apparently, the Attorney General's position is - that the only thing the MLPAI can't do, is be sued!”

The judge interjected a question about how the Initiative handled Public Records Act Requests. She received an answer that PRA requests were handled by the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF). But in this reporter's case, a Public Records Act request was handled by the MLPA Initiative, under the legal auspices of their parent organization, the California Natural Resources Agency.

*****************

It is our contention that the MLPAI was indeed a very sophisticated organization. Despite neglecting to formally incorporate, they engaged in activities that define organizations. They contracted individuals and other organizations, they conducted meetings and negotiations, and they did a whole host of other activities - all with stated objectives, and a common purpose.

As such, the MLPAI was by definition a legal entity - subject to accountability by its own proclaimed standards of openness and and transparency.



###