*Attempt to steal CA OHV Grant Funds*

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

This is exactly the crap that divides this whole group, that is pretending to be fighting for one thing. Clandestine, back room, double agent secret agent orange crap..."a trusted person"...like they're freaking talking about nuclear fission...gimme a freaking break.....that, and the "taking of gloves off" posts?? This group needs to grow the freak up.

I don't know who you are....and based on content...your last 5 or 6 posts, fell to the bottom of relevance.

All this hiding behind user names is BS. Say who you are, say what you mean...NICELY and your credibility rises measurably.

I give a nice to all users in this Land Use forum with the balls to post who they are, who they represent, what they know, how they think it can be fix/won/defeated and do it professionally. Everyone else...

Seems like every battle....a new worm rolls in, preaching about their imaginary accomplishments, work with imaginary people, their imaginary victories, and their imaginary "I told you so, X years ago".

All you imaginary people...could easily be Rich, Monte or Karen just trying to

Someone give me a hand to climb down...lol

I have to disagree with you on your post.

I'm not doing any back room dealings. I'm perhaps one of the most public about what I've learned unless my source ask's me to keep the information private.

There is not one instance of what I've provided as being "imaginary".

I have made a choice to keep my name off internet message boards going back to when I started using them in 2000 or so.

That is my choice to remain private.

I'm thinking you are from Nor Cal?

If you really want to know who I am, please contact Amy from CORVA. She and I talk often has she has a fairly good perspective of my credentials, accomplishments, and background.

Now, please - lets keep this thread on topic.

Further comments or questions about me, please PM me.

[randii]

I'll just leave this here...

[Bebe]

Send that to Simitian.

[fermentor]

[LYIN' KING]

http://nohvcclibrary.forestry.uga.ed...LES/M-0031.pdf

[OrangeCrash]

http://www.southbayriders.com/forums...121897&page=4&

Watch Monday for the Revised Governor's budget. The folks from Dept of Finance said to expect a big loan from the OHV Trust Fund to the general fund.

And they haven't budgeted to repay the last loans they took that are due to be repaid in 2013!

They warned Simitian not to make plans for the money, because they might take it first!

FYI other sharks in the water

[The Wolf]

yes, i was watching the subcommittee meeting - and, even the staff from the LAO mentioned that the Governors Office probably had their eye on those funds....

So, one way or another - they are going after the funds!

[LYIN' KING]

History repeats itself . . . 41 years of OHMVR documented history is tough to argue with and so is the legal brief!

-41 years of self-funding SVRAs
-40 years of fuel tax and SVRA fee transfer to the “fund”
-30 years of transferring OHV “Special Funds” to the “General Fund”, other “funds” or as loans/gifts
-30 years of broken repayment promises totaling over $55M in just the 14 year period dating from ’82- ’96
http://nohvcclibrary.forestry.uga.ed...LES/M-0031.pdf

Then there is the simple one paragraph explanation from a well-respected Attorney why the “taking” is not legal.

A LEGAL MEMO

User generated revenue sources earmarked for deposit in the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Trust Fund (OHV Trust Fund) – including off-highway vehicle registration fees, off-highway vehicular recreation facility use fees, and off-highway use fuel taxes – cannot be redirected to general fund purposes. California case law is very clear that trust fund revenues cannot be redirected to non-trust purposes including transferring those revenues to the general fund. In addition, such funds cannot be loaned to the General Fund if the loan will result in the Division of OHV Recreation from completing its mission as defined by the Public Resources Code.
http://carnegiejournal.com/2012/03/0...hv-trust-fund/

We’ve hit and missed all around this matter but we’ve not had it laid out for us by a legal expert as the breakdown in the link above does.

What I question is why a onetime success formula that actually worked was not followed thereafter and expanded upon as evolving legislation may have made the original success methodology in need of revision, but perhaps still effective given same?

P.S. If Mr. Hathaway is still around and anyone knows how to contact him, I believe we would all benefit from his insight on the matter as it stands today!

[The Wolf]

I have always believed that the OHV community needs to have a final answer on this issue - and unfortunately, it will be by the courts. If the courts rule that funds can be re-directed, then so be it - we will either have to accept the decision and live with it - or we would have to fight for a more stringent type of protection (such as a proposition - as I believe they have a higher threshold in protection. If the courts rules that trust funds can not be re-directed - than all is good. But, I don't see how we could go down any path until we know where we stand. Filing the lawsuit is our first step. Only my two cents....

[LYIN' KING]

The questions posed above need answers and the courts cannot provide all of them . . . just my $2.00!

[OrangeCrash]

I always considered going to Court a roll of the dice, but when there's nothing left to loose I say roll um, I'm going to stand down till Monday we'll see how everyone feels then.

[The Wolf]

The courts may not have all the answers - but, they have the last say. We need to know what the courts think before we can really develop a plan to go forward. Filing a lawsuit may not be the most desired way to go - in essence, we have already lost if we do nothing. I will call your $2.00 and raise you two more cents....

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

History repeats itself . . . 41 years of OHMVR documented history is tough to argue with and so is the legal brief!

-41 years of self-funding SVRAs
-40 years of fuel tax and SVRA fee transfer to the “fund”
-30 years of transferring OHV “Special Funds” to the “General Fund”, other “funds” or as loans/gifts
-30 years of broken repayment promises totaling over $55M in just the 14 year period dating from ’82- ’96
http://nohvcclibrary.forestry.uga.ed...LES/M-0031.pdf

Then there is the simple one paragraph explanation from a well-respected Attorney why the “taking” is not legal.

A LEGAL MEMO

User generated revenue sources earmarked for deposit in the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Trust Fund (OHV Trust Fund) – including off-highway vehicle registration fees, off-highway vehicular recreation facility use fees, and off-highway use fuel taxes – cannot be redirected to general fund purposes. California case law is very clear that trust fund revenues cannot be redirected to non-trust purposes including transferring those revenues to the general fund. In addition, such funds cannot be loaned to the General Fund if the loan will result in the Division of OHV Recreation from completing its mission as defined by the Public Resources Code.
http://carnegiejournal.com/2012/03/0...hv-trust-fund/

We’ve hit and missed all around this matter but we’ve not had it laid out for us by a legal expert as the breakdown in the link above does.

What I question is why a onetime success formula that actually worked was not followed thereafter and expanded upon as evolving legislation may have made the original success methodology in need of revision, but perhaps still effective given same?

P.S. If Mr. Hathaway is still around and anyone knows how to contact him, I believe we would all benefit from his insight on the matter as it stands today!

Out standing work here.

Yes, Mr. Hathaway is still around.

I know him well and have spoken to him on another matter just 3 weeks ago.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

Yes, Mr. Hathaway is still around.

I know him well and have spoken to him on another matter just 3 weeks ago.

Thanks, just a couple more things to consider.

History of Mr. Hathaway and his success is difficult to come by!

IMHO, his filling in the blanks may provide some enlightenment and possibly prove helpful in developing some strategy.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Thanks, just a couple more things to consider.

History of Mr. Hathaway and his success is difficult to come by!

IMHO, his filling in the blanks may provide some enlightenment and possibly prove helpful in developing some strategy.

I'm of the belief that he has been contacted and quietly has given his insight on the legal effort. This is coupled with others that were a part of Mr. Hathaway's effort being consulted by the group that has hired the law firm.

This - and other factors - was the precise reason I am appealing in this thread to individuals and groups to contribute to this legal effort.

Much of what you provided in the link to the article has been known by the principles of the legal effort.

The article is an excellent example of putting the pieces together.

[Jeff Knoll]

While I (personally)feel there is merit in a lawsuit THREAT, my concern remains the same. How do you fund it? What is the plan for that? Why spend $15,000 to see if its feasible when there is no plan (that I have seen) to fund the lawsuit? ( Can a Threat do the same for less money?)

I am posting this because I don't want the assumption based on my opinion of Phantom Duck to be misinterpreted as being for or against a lawsuit.

The OHV industry can't afford to throw money at things like it has in the past. Tellico hurt efforts to raise funds. I have seen it first hand. If you don't have a complete plan and a budget you will not be able to raise large donations. Your not going to fund this on $20.00 donations.

If that plan is available I would like to see it, because so far I have not seen it. Call Amy is not good enough, it needs to be in writing. When will the web site be up? ( I understand that takes time and money)


Now I have to ask. What is the goal? Return of $160 Mil, just is never gonna happen. Stop future takes? I am down for that, but getting back whats been taken is gonna be a tough fight. Read expensive!

We ( OHV landuse advocates), have to change the way this is done. I am not saying you have to do it the way we are doing the JV effort, but I have been talking to a lot of people who have the money to fund this type of stuff, and they are not budging without a plan in place anymore. You can't just have the idea in your head.

Since Amy is the executive director of CORVA is this a CORVA effort, or is it something else? N2Dirt, or what ever this group is called, is it sanctioned by CORVA? If not why? Where does the money go? How much is eaten up in management fees? Transparency? Who is responsible to pay the lawyers? What happens if the fund goes insolvent?

Like I said in an earlier post, if a group wants to fund something like this and has the funds to do it more power to them, they will be heroes. But if you want people to give you money, you need to have a complete plan and a pitch. I can only assume at this time the lawsuit is to get money back into the OHMVR Fund? If its something else, sorry I missed that. Have earlier lawsuits yield any return from the State into the perspective funds?

This is not meant to be a blast on anyone, or any group. My hope is to share what I have seen, and reflect what people needed to see before they opened up their wallets for JV. You can't just guilt them into it.

I am now going to follow some good advice, and keep my efforts focused on JV. If I can help who ever leads this effort in some way, you know how to find me.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

While I (personally)feel there is merit in a lawsuit THREAT, my concern remains the same. How do you fund it? What is the plan for that? Why spend $15,000 to see if its feasible when there is no plan (that I have seen) to fund the lawsuit? ( Can a Threat do the same for less money?)

.

This has to more than a "threat" - if this is all it is, they will never take us seriously. Threats do not mean anything unless we follow through.

I understand your concern about the fundidng - it appears to me that is where this discussion should go. That means everyone coming up with ideas and suggestion on how we can fund this. It does no one any good to sit back and just ask questions without throwing out some ideas. I am not saying this as a knock against anyone - but, it is easy to bitch and complain, and ask question after question (although we do need some of that) - it takes effort to provide suggestions and follow through... Our club is working on providing money for this cause...

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

Now I have to ask. What is the goal? Return of $160 Mil, just is never gonna happen. Stop future takes? I am down for that, but getting back whats been taken is gonna be a tough fight. Read expensive!

Jeff, OHVDC is only going after the $10M that was redirected from the fuel tax and into the general fund last year. There is strong opinion that the use of the fuel tax money is defined by Article 19 of the state constitution and the general fund isn't one of those uses. If OHVDC prevails, it will stop the future taking of fuel tax revenues for the general fund.

Website = http://www.ohvdc.org/

Since Amy is the executive director of CORVA is this a CORVA effort, or is it something else? N2Dirt, or what ever this group is called, is it sanctioned by CORVA? If not why? Where does the money go? How much is eaten up in management fees? Transparency? Who is responsible to pay the lawyers? What happens if the fund goes insolvent?

This is not a CORVA project. N2Dirt stepped up to help with the handling of the financial stuff and has the correct nonprofit status for this endeavor. No management fees that I'm aware of.

I can only assume at this time the lawsuit is to get money back into the OHMVR Fund? If its something else, sorry I missed that.

Correct! And to stop future "taking" of fuel taxes for non constitutional uses.
One big difference between this suit and many of the others that the OHV organizations have been involved in is that OHVDC is going to be the plaintiff instead of an intervenor for the defense. That puts OHVDC in a legal position to recover legal costs if they prevail against the state. The state does have a program similar to the fed EAJ act.

btw, I am a member of OHVDC but I am not a representative of the org. Just trying to help fill in some of the information blanks as I see it.

Ride on
Brewster

[aphantomduck]

Great post Brew.

Your response to Jeff seems to me to fill in some of the blanks he is concerned about.

I can't imagine that ORBA, AMA and its districts could not throw a grand or two towards this effort.

This effort seems to have a very real chance to succeed.

[LYIN' KING]

I know it isn’t realistic, but it sure would help generate donations if this effort included getting back the nearly $200M owed the OHV Trust Fund too!!!

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

I know it isn’t realistic, but it sure would help generate donations if this effort included getting back the nearly $200M owed the OHV Trust Fund too!!!

Agreed.

But I'm thinking we need to take one step at a time.

This community has a real chance at a win on this issue. Folks often like to be identified with winners.

If we can prevail on this matter, then I'm thinking the money can be generated to take another step.

[LYIN' KING]

I agree and am certain that when we win the folks orchestrating this effort have perpared a “hit list” of “shovel ready” projects to keep the green machine at bay and the "fund" at its "reimbursement threshold".

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

I know it isn’t realistic, but it sure would help generate donations if this effort included getting back the nearly $200M owed the OHV Trust Fund too!!!

As I see it, this effort has a good chance of winning.

The other "borrowed" money was done by the book, depending on the interpretation of the present legislation. SB742 allows for "borrowing" from the OHV trust fund. The legislatures can just re-borrow the same money instead of repaying it or rewrite the legislation to suit their needs. Unfortunately, the term "Trust Fund" has no legal binding.

Ride on
Brewster

[LYIN' KING]

Yeah, it’s the pre-SB742 money I question more than anything, especially given my lack of OHV “Attorney” status.

[OrangeCrash]

Yeah, it’s the pre-SB742 money I question more than anything

Also per SB 742 the loans were due to be paid back in two years not 4, so as far as I"m concerned the so called promise of SB 742 as all ready been flushed