TY 2014 Form 990 Schedule O

efile Public Visual Render ObjectId: 201542269349303569 - Submission: 2015-08-14 TIN: 94-2197343

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at
www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2014

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

94-2197343

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	DANIEL AND MARIA LEVIN V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PLF IS CHALLENGING SAN FRANCISCO'S NEW "RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENT ORDINANCE", BECAUSE IT REQUIRES RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY THEIR TENANTS OPPRESSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUMS OF MONEY BEFORE THE OWNERS CAN REGAIN PERSONAL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY (MONEY THE TENANTS CAN USE FOR ANY PRIVATE PURPOSE THEY WISH). PLF ATTORNEYS FILED THE CHALLENGE ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS DANIEL AND MARIA LEVIN, A MARRIED COUPLE WHO OWN A SMALL TWO-UNIT, 2-STORY HOUSE ON LOMBARD STREET. THEY LIVE IN THE UPPER UNIT, BUT ARE EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE RIGHT TO TAKE OCCUPANCY OF THE LOWER UNIT, BECAUSE OF THE COSTLY "TENANT RELOCATION" FEE ($117,000, IN THEIR CASE) REQUIRED BY THE NEW ORDINANCE. PLF ATTORNEYS ALSO REPRESENT TWO ASSOCIATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS (THE SAN FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION AND THE COALITION FOR BETTER HOUSING) AND PARKLANE ASSOCIATES, OWNER OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE. PLF WON A VICTORY IN THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT THAT RULED THE FEE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE CITY HAS APPEALED. LIPPMAN V. CITY OF OAKLAND CALIFORNIA LAW GUARANTEES EVERY INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO AN APPEAL OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS TO A NEUTRAL APPEALS BOARD OR THE CITY COUNCIL. OAKLAND HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS THIS RIGHT, DESPITE A RECENT GRAND JURY REPORT CONDEMNING ITS BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION FOR ITS ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT AND ABUSIVE APPEAL PROCEDURES. INSTEAD, OAKLAND ONLY ALLOWS AN APPEAL TO A HEARING OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. PLF IS REPRESENTING THOMAS LIPPMAN, AN OAKLAND LANDLORD, IN A CHALLENGE TO THIS UNFAIR PROCESS AND CONTESTING THE IMPOSITION OF MORE THAN $10,000 IN FEES WITHOUT EVER GIVING HIM A PROPER STATE LAW-REQUIRED APPEAL. NIES V. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE THE NIES OWN A HOME AND LAND ALONG THE BEACH IN THE TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. UNDER TRADITIONAL NORTH CAROLINA LAW, THE "WET" BEACH IS PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT THE DRY SAND AREA LYING UPLAND OF THE WET BEACH (WHERE THE NIES' PROPERTY IS LOCATED) IS PRIVATELY OWNED. THE TOWN HAS, HOWEVER, RECENTLY ADOPTED SEVERAL ORDINANCES THAT MAKE ALL PRIVATE DRY SAND AREAS INTO A ROAD AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE TOWN AND GENERAL PUBLIC. ONE TOWN LAW CREATES A TWENTY-FOOT EXPRESS LANE ON THE NIES' DRY SAND PROPERTY FOR TOWN VEHICLES OF ALL VARIETIES. GARBAGE TRUCKS, POLICE CARS, AND TOWN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES NOW REGULARLY CROSS THE NIES' PROPERTY UNDER PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF THE LAW. THE SECOND TOWN ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO DRIVE AND PARK ON THE NIES' DRY SAND PROPERTY FOR MUCH OF THE YEAR UPON PAYING A FEE TO THE TOWN. GARBAGE AND UNSAFE TIRE RUTS ARE LEFT BEHIND. THE TOWN HAS NEVER COMPENSATED THE NIES' FOR THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR LAND AS A ROAD. THEREFORE, THE NIES SUED THE TOWN IN STATE COURT, ARGUING THAT THE TOWN IS TAKING ITS PROPERTY, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. AFTER LOSING IN THE TRIAL COURT, THE NIES HAVE APPEALED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE COURT TO DIRECTLY REPRESENT THE NIES IN THEIR FIGHT TO BE FREE FROM AN UNCOMPENSATED PHYSICAL INVASION OF THEIR PROPERTY BY THE PUBLIC. AT THE CORE OF THE CASE IS THE TOWN'S CLAIM THAT PRIVATE DRY BEACH AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO AN IMPLICIT "PUBLIC TRUST" EASEMENT UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW THAT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC (AND TOWN) TO USE THOSE AREAS AT WILL. THE TOWN CLAIMS ITS LAWS HAVE TAKEN NOTHING FROM THE NIES BECAUSE IT BELIEVES THE TITLE TO THEIR DRY SAND AREAS HAS ALWAYS BEEN BURDENED BY PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS THAT THE TOWN MAY ENFORCE. UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE TOWN, STATE LAW SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT. THE PUBLIC DOES HAVE BEACH RIGHTS - BUT ONLY ON STATE-OWNED WET BEACHES SEAWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE. UPLAND AREAS LIKE THE NIES' PROPERTY ARE FULLY PRIVATE. AS A RESULT, THE TOWN MUST CONDEMN THAT PROPERTY IF IT WANTS ACCESS. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT V. COY A. KOONTZ COY A. KOONTZ WANTS TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL LAND, PART OF WHICH LIES WITHIN A RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION ZONE IN ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. HE APPLIED FOR A DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT WITH THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. ST. JOHNS AGREED TO GRANT THE PERMIT, BUT ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT HE PLACE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER MUCH OF HIS LAND, AND PERFORM MITIGATION OFF-SITE BY REPLACING CULVERTS AND PLUGGING CERTAIN DRAINAGE CANALS ON OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE STATE AND MILES AWAY FROM THE KOONTZ'S PROPERTY. WHEN KOONTZ REFUSED TO PERFORM THE OFF-SITE MITIGATION, ST. JOHNS DENIED THE PERMIT. KOONTZ FILED AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION SUIT IN CIRCUIT COURT. KOONTZ ARGUED THAT THE OFF-SITE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT VIOLATED NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND DOLAN V. TIGARD. THE CIRCUIT COURT APPLIED NOLLAN AND DOLAN, HOLDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT BORE NO CONNECTION TO THE PROJECT'S ALLEGED IMPACTS ON THE RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION ZONE. THE COURT AWARDED KOONTZ COMPENSATION FOR A TEMPORARY TAKING. THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, BUT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REVERSED. THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NO TAKING UNDER NOLLAN AND DOLAN HAD OCCURRED, BECAUSE (1) NOLLAN AND DOLAN APPLY ONLY TO FORCED DEDICATIONS OF INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY (NOT TO MITIGATION WORK); AND (2) NOLLAN AND DOLAN APPLY ONLY WHEN GOVERNMENT APPROVES AND ISSUES A PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS (NOT WHEN IT DENIES A PERMIT, AND THEREFORE NOTHING HAS BEEN DEMANDED OF OR TAKEN FROM THE LANDOWNER). PLF FILED A PETITION TO CERTIORARI ON BEHALF OF KOONTZ IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WHICH WAS GRANTED AFTER WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT: (1) NOLLAN AND DOLAN APPLY TO AN EXACTION WHERE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS THAT THE APPLICANT PAY FOR OFF-SITE MITIGATION; AND (2) THE NOLLAN/DOLAN DOCTRINES EXTEND TO PERMIT EXACTIONS EVEN WHERE THE PERMIT WAS NOT ISSUED DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S REJECTION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTION. THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE THE FLORIDA COURTS FOR A DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES. KENTNER, ET AL. V. CITY OF SANIBEL THE CITY OF SANIBEL, FLORIDA, ENACTED AN ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS NEW CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS AND ACCESSORY PIERS WITHIN AN AREA FRONTING SAN CARLOS BAY. THE PETITIONERS (OWNERS OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY) CHALLENGED THE ORDINANCE, CLAIMING THAT THE OUTRIGHT BAN ON NEW DOCKS VIOLATES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT TRADITIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY DUE PROCESS, AND GRANTED SANIBEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LAWSUIT. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, CONCLUDING THAT, AS A MATTER OF CIRCUIT LAW, TRADITIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT AMONG THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. PLF'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI NOTES THAT THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY, AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. PLF ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY REPRESENT THE KENTNERS AND SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE AS A VIOLATION OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. BREINIG V. MARTIN COUNTY THREE YEARS AGO, THE BREINIGS BOUGHT FLASH BEACH GRILLE IN HOBE SOUND, FLORIDA. THEY SOUGHT A PERMIT TO EXPAND THEIR RESTAURANT AND LEARNED THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT GRANT IT BECAUSE EXPANSION WOULD VIOLATE THE COUNTY'S UNRECORDED CONSERVATION EASEMENT, CREATED IN 1990 BY THE PRIOR OWNERS. HOWEVER, STATE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT ENFORCEMENT OF SECRET UNRECORDED EASEMENTS AGAINST INNOCENT BUYERS LIKE THE BREINIGS. PLF REPRESENTED THE BREINIGS IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST TO NULLIFY THE EASEMENT AND REQUIRE THE PERMIT BE ISSUED. ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY CAPITULATED BY GRANTING THE PERMIT.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	STEWART AND JASPER ORCHARDS V. JEWELL, ET AL IN A MISGUIDED PROGRAM TO HELP A FISH THAT'S ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LIST (THE DELTA SMELT) FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS HAVE SEVERELY CUT THE PUMPING INTO THE WATER SYSTEM THAT SERVES MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THESE ARE THE MOST DRASTIC CUTS EVER TO CALIFORNIA WATER HAVING THE BIGGEST IMPACT ANYWHERE IN THE NATION ACCORDING TO CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES. WHILE FARMS AND BUSINESSES ARE RECEIVING LITTLE CONTRACTED FOR WATER, MORE THAN 81-BILLION GALLONS OF WATER ARE FLOWING OUT TO THE OCEAN UNDER FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS. THAT'S ENOUGH WATER TO PUT 85,000 ACRES OF FARMLAND BACK INTO PRODUCTION. IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURAL HEARTLAND, THOUSANDS OF JOBS ARE THREATENED BY THE PUMPING CUTBACKS. IN SOME URBAN COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WATER RATES HAVE SKYROCKETED AND RATIONING IS A PROSPECT. MOREOVER, IN A REAL SENSE, NATIONAL SECURITY IS ALSO AT ISSUE: BY KEEPING WATER FROM AMERICA'S BREADBASKET, WE BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN SOURCES FOR THE MOST BASIC NEED OF LIFE: FOOD. REPRESENTING FARMERS AFFECTED BY THE WATER CUTBACKS, PLF BROUGHT A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ARGUING THAT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE SMELT WATER CUTBACKS, AS WELL AS QUESTIONING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE A NONCOMMERCIAL, INTRASTATE SPECIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION'S COMMERCE CLAUSE. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING V. DEPT OF FISH & GAME THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (CDFN) IMPOSED SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS ON FISH STOCKING COMPANIES (INCLUDING HATCHERIES AND PRIVATE FISHING LAKES AND PONDS) THAT WOULD THREATEN THEIR ABILITY TO STAY IN BUSINESS. THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON THE UNSCIENTIFIC PREMISE THAT ANY STOCKED FISH, EVEN IN PRIVATE SELF CONTAINED LAKES, HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON INDIGENOUS SPECIES AND HABITAT. PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTED THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING (CARF) IN CHALLENGING THESE REGULATIONS. CARF IS A PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATION WHOSE MEMBERS INCLUDE PRIVATE FISH HATCHERIES AND FISHING LAKE OPERATORS AS WELL AS PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN AND WOMEN, AS WELL AS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS V., U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS WAS FORMED BY RESIDENTS OF SOUTHWESTERN UTAH WHO HAVE SUFFERED FOR DECADES UNDER EXTREMELY BURDENSOME ESA REGULATIONS REGARDING THE UTAH PRAIRIE DOG. RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM BUILDING HOMES, STARTING BUSINESSES, AND PROTECTING THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE RODENT. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CEDAR CITY) HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROTECT RECREATIONAL FIELDS, THE LOCAL AIRPORT, AND THE CEMETERY FROM THE BARKING, TUNNELING, BURROWING CREATURE. LIKE ALL OF US, THE ORGANIZATION DOESN'T WANT TO SEE THE SPECIES GO EXTINCT. HOWEVER, WOULD LIKE THE PRAIRIE DOGS TO BE MOVED FROM RESIDENTIAL AND DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOODS TO NATURAL AREAS ON PUBLIC LANDS. UNDER ESA REGULATIONS, DOING SO WOULD BE A CRIME. THE IMPACTS OF THE REGULATION ARE SO SEVERE BECAUSE THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 40,000 PRAIRIE DOGS IN THIS SMALL REGION - A NEAR DOUBLING IN POPULATION FROM WHERE IT WAS A FEW DECADES AGO. THREE QUARTERS OF THESE ANIMALS ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. PLF REPRESENTS PETPO AND ARGUES THT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CONDUCT AFFECTING THE UTAH PRAIRIE DOG. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE REGULATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SPECIES IS FOUND ONLY IN UTAH AND IS INVOLVED IN NO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, STATES ARE CHARGED WITH REGULATING LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES LIKE THIS. THE DISTRICT COURT AGREED WITH PLF AND STRUCK DOWN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATION, AND SINCE THEN, THE STATE OF UTAH HAS SET OUT TO SHOW THAT IT CAN PROTECT THE ANIMAL WITHOUT IMPOSING SUCH SEVERE BURDENS ON INDIVIDUALS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS APPEALED. COALITION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION (PLF) HAS PETITIONED THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER FROM THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LIST.THE GNATCATCHER'S LISTING AS "THREATENED" ON THE ESA LIST HAS LED TO SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE ACROSS VAST AREAS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE SERVICE ITSELF HAS ESTIMATED THAT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS WILL COST OVER $900 MILLION BY YEAR 2025. THE PLF PETITION URGED THE REMOVAL OF THE GNATCATCHER FROM THE ESA LIST ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SPECIES IS NOT ACTUALLY THREATENED. RATHER, BIOLOGICAL STUDIES HAVE FOUND THAT THE GNATCATCHER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS PART OF THE SAME SPECIES OF GNATCATCHER THAT EXISTS IN ABUNDANCE IN MEXICO. THE DELISTING PETITION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, THE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ACCURACY & RELIABILITY (CESAR), AND THE COALITION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURE, AND BUSINESS (COLAB). MARKLE V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CAN FEDERAL OFFICIALS LABEL PRIVATE PROPERTY AS "CRITICAL HABITAT" FOR AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, WHEN IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROPERTY IS USELESS FOR THE SPECIES, AND MAY NEVER BE USABLE HABITAT? THIS IS WHAT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HAS DONE IN THE MATTER OF THE DUSKY GOPHER FROG IN THE GULF COAST REGION. IN JUNE, 2012, WHEN THE AGENCY DESIGNATED "CRITICAL HABITAT" FOR THE SPECIES, REGULATORS STRETCHED THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BEYOND ANY PREVIOUS INTERPRETATION BY INCLUDING 1,544 ACRES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA, THAT IS MANIFESTLY UNSUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE FROG. IN FACT, THE SERVICE ITSELF ADMITS AS MUCH. THE DESIGNATION OF THIS FORESTED AREA IS BASED ON PURE SPECULATION THAT THE LAND MIGHT SOMEDAY BE MANAGED BY PRIVATE PARTIES FOR THE SPECIES' CONSERVATION. HOWEVER, THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS AREA SUITABLE FOR HABITAT IS THROUGH CONTROLLED BURNS AND REVEGETATION, WHICH THE SERVICE ADMITS IT CANNOT MANDATE ON PRIVATE LAND. PLF IS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY'S OWNERS IN CHALLENGING THIS UNJUSTIFIED FEDERAL TARGETING OF THEIR LAND. UNDER THE ESA, CRITICAL HABITAT MUST ACTUALLY CONTAIN THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIES. IF PROPERTY CAN BE DESIGNATED EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T USABLE AS HABITAT AND HAS NO ESSENTIAL FEATURES, THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OR LOCATION OF PRIVATE LAND THAT CAN BE ROPED OFF BY FEDERAL DECREE. REGULATORS CAN IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON ANYONE'S PROPERTY, ANYWHERE, MERELY BY CLAIMING IT COULD SOMEDAY, IN SOME SPECULATIVE WAY, BE USED FOR SPECIES RECOVERY. THIS CASE IS ON APPEAL.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMMISSION, CALIFORNIA ABALONE ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA LOBSTER AND TRAP FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN OF SANTA BARBARA V. JACOBSON, ET AL. CONCERNED THAT OIL SPILLS THREATENED TO WIPE OUT THE SEA OTTER THROUGH ITS ENTIRE RANGE, THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUGHT PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS TO CREATE AN EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION OF OTTERS TO BE LOCATED ON SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND, WHICH COULD BE USED TO REPOPULATE THE RANGE IN THE EVENT OF AN OIL SPILL. THE SERVICE NEEDED EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM, WHICH IT RECEIVED. BUT BECAUSE OTTERS CAN DESTROY SHELL FISHERIES DUE TO THEIR VORACIOUS APPETITES, THE PUBLIC LAW THAT AUTHORIZED THE PROGRAM (99 P.L. 625), STRUCK A CAREFUL BALANCE BETWEEN THE SEA OTTERS AND THE LOCAL FISHERIES THAT WOULD BE THREATENED IF THE OTTERS EXPANDED FROM SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND. CONGRESS COMMANDED THE SERVICE TO ESTABLISH A MANAGEMENT ZONE AROUND THE EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION. CONGRESS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THE SERVICE TO REMOVE OTTERS FOUND IN THIS AREA, AND EXEMPTED ANY INCIDENTAL TAKES IN THE ZONE. THE SERVICE SET UP A TRANSLOCATION PROGRAM IN 1987 AND, INITIALLY, COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. IN 1993, HOWEVER, THE SERVICE DECIDED TO STOP ALL CONTAINMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT ZONE. ON DECEMBER 19, 2012, THE SERVICE PUBLISHED A FINAL RULE FORMALLY TERMINATING THE MANAGEMENT ZONE AND THE INCIDENTAL TAKE EXEMPTION. IN EFFECT, THE SERVICE DECIDED TO RENEGE ON THE COMPROMISE STRUCK BY CONGRESS WITH FISHERMEN. THE UNCHECKED SPREAD OF THE SOUTHERN SEA OTTER INTO THE MANAGEMENT ZONE WILL HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, FISHERIES, AND INDUSTRY. THE SEA OTTER VORACIOUSLY CONSUMES SHELLFISH, INCLUDING ENDANGERED ABALONE. THE CALIFORNIA ABALONE ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE STATE TO LIFT A MORATORIUM ON ABALONE DIVING BUT IF THE SEA OTTER CONTINUES TO SPREAD, THIS WORK WILL BE FOR NAUGHT BECAUSE THE SEA OTTER WILL LIKELY WIPE OUT THE ABALONE POPULATION. THE SEA OTTER ALSO CONSUMES SEA URCHIN, AND ITS UNCHECKED MOVE INTO THE MANAGEMENT ZONE WILL ALSO DEVASTATE SEA URCHIN FISHERIES. THERE ARE MANY LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON A THRIVING FISHERY, INCLUDING FISHERMEN AND BUSINESSES THAT PROCESS THE CATCH WHICH WILL BE DEVASTATED BY THE SERVICE'S ACTION.REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMMISSION, THE CALIFORNIA ABALONE ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA LOBSTER AND TRAP FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION, AND THE COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN OF SANTA BARBARA IN A LAWSUIT, PLF ARGUES THAT THE SERVICE HAD NO ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE THE SEA OTTER MANAGEMENT ZONE AROUND SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND. SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC. V. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE IN THIS ACTION, PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENT SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC., A NONPROFIT COALITION AND PARTNERSHIP OF FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, YOUNG PARENTS, RETIREES, CAREER PROFESSIONALS, BUSINESS OWNERS, RESIDENTS, AND COMMUNITY LEADERS WHO ARE UNITED IN THEIR COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE UNIQUE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER, CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA.ON BEHALF OF SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC., PLF PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) TO DOWNLIST WEST INDIAN MANATEE (TRICHECHUS MANATUS) FROM ENDANGERED TO THREATENED SPECIES. PLF CONTENDS THAT USFWS HAS A LEGAL DUTY, UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, TO IMPLEMENT THIS DOWNLISTING, BECAUSE THE SPECIES NO LONGER QUALIFIES AS ENDANGERED, ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY'S OWN FINDINGS. IN 2007, WHEN USFWS CONDUCTED A 5-YEAR REVIEW OF THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE, WHICH INCLUDES THE SUB-SPECIES FLORIDA AND ANTILLEAN MANATEE, THE AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT DOWNLISTING FROM ENDANGERED TO THREATENED WAS WARRANTED. THE 5-YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENT, REQUIRED BY THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA), ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO ASCERTAIN, ON A REGULAR BASIS, WHETHER A LISTED SPECIES STILL REQUIRES ESA PROTECTIONS AND, IF SO AT WHAT LEVEL. THE 2007 REVIEW RECOMMENDED THAT THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE BE DOWNLISTED FROM ITS CURRENT ENDANGERED STATUS TO THE STATUS OF THREATENED. THE REVIEW RELIED HEAVILY UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWC). MORE THAN FIVE YEARS PASSED SINCE THE AGENCY MADE ITS FINDINGS, BUT USFWS MADE NO EFFORT TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DOWNLIST THE SPECIES. THIS DELAY PROMPTED PLF'S PETITION ON BEHALF OF SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC., TO DOWNLIST THE MANATEE. THE MORNING STAR PACKING COMPANY, ET AL., V. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ATTORNEYS WITH PLF HAVE CHALLENGED CALIFORNIA'S "CAP AND TRADE" AUCTION REGULATION. THE REGULATION CREATES A QUARTERLY AUCTION PROGRAM REQUIRING MANY CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS TO BID SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONTINUING TO EMIT CARBON DIOXIDE OR BE FACED WITH CLOSING THEIR DOORS IN CALIFORNIA, LAYING OFF THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND MOVING THEIR BUSINESSES TO OTHER STATES. FILED ON BEHALF OF A BROAD SPECTRUM OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS HARMED BY THE REGULATION, THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE AUCTION PROCESS AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE TAX BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ENACTED BY TWO-THIRDS MAJORITIES IN BOTH CHAMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, AS REQUIRED FOR NEW TAXES BY THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (PROPOSITION 13 AND PROPOSITION 26). AS PLF'S COMPLAINT STATES, THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB) DEVISED THE AUCTION PLAN AS A MEANS OF RAISING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REVENUE, WITHOUT ANY INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION FROM THE LEGISLATURE. CARB HATCHED THE AUCTION PROGRAM PURPORTEDLY TO IMPLEMENT AB 32, THE 2006 LEGISLATION THAT REQUIRES REDUCTIONS IN THE EMISSION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN CALIFORNIA BY THE YEAR 2020. BUT NOTHING IN AB 32 AUTHORIZES CREATION OF AN AUCTION PROCESS TO SELL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION ALLOWANCES FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. NOR DOES AB 32 AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF ANY KIND OF NEW TAX. THIS CASE IS ON APPEAL. SHEA V. KERRY UNDER THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S MID-LEVEL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN (MLAAP), THE DEPARTMENT HIRED ENTRY-LEVEL, SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITIES DIRECTLY INTO A MID-LEVEL POSITION. WILLIAM SHEA, A WHITE MALE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, ARGUING THAT HE WAS SUBJECTED TO UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE MLAAP BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT SHEA BEARS THE BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE RACE-BASED PROGRAM WAS ILLEGAL, AND HE FAILED TO CARRY THAT BURDEN OF PROOF. THE COURT NOTED THAT HAD MR. SHEA BROUGHT HIS CLAIM UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE GOVERNMENT'S BURDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER, AND HE WOULD HAVE PREVAILED. REPRESENTING MR. SHEA ON APPEAL, ATTORNEYS FOR PLF CONTEND THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES A RACE-BASED HIRING PLAN, IT MUST BEAR THE BURDEN OF SHOWING WHY THE PROGRAM IS NECESSARY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHALLENGE TO THE PLAN IS BROUGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR TITLE VII. CORAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO FOR MANY YEARS, SAN FRANCISCO OPERATED ITS PUBLIC CONTRACTING PROGRAM BY GIVING PREFERENCES TO MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES IN VIOLATION OF PROPOSITION 209 AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. PLF SUED THE CITY AND PREVAILED IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ON THE PROPOSITION 209 ISSUES. HOWEVER, THE COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE CITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT IT INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MINORITY AND WOMEN CONTRACTORS IN VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE CITY ARGUES THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES PREFERENCES TO REMEDY PAST INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AND THAT IT DID NOT INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE. PLF ARGUES THAT THE CITY HAS NOT PRESENTED, AND CANNOT PRESENT, ANY FACTS DEMONSTRATING INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC CONTRACTING. THE CASE IS BACK IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. CONNERLY, ET AL. V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. THE CALIFORNIA CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH DRAWING CALIFORNIA'S CONGRESSIONAL, ASSEMBLY, SENATE, AND BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ELECTORAL DISTRICTS. THE 14 COMMISSIONERS ARE CHOSEN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE ' 8252. UNDER SECTION 8252, THE FIRST EIGHT COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY RANDOM SELECTION FROM A POOL OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS. THESE EIGHT APPOINTEES IN TURN SELECT THE FINAL SIX COMMISSION MEMBERS PURSUANT TO THE MANDATES OF SECTION 8252(G). UNFORTUNATELY, SECTION 8252(G) REQUIRES THAT RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SEX BE CONSIDERED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS WHICH VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SECTION 31 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (PROPOSITION 209). PROP 209 PROHIBITS THE USE OF RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SEX IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, AND PUBLIC CONTRACTING. REPRESENTING WARD CONNERLY, AND AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, PLF ATTORNEYS ARE BRINGING A FACIAL CHALLENGE TO SECTION 8252(G)'S REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE USE OF RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SEX IN SELECTING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	YOUNG V. HEINEMAN, ET AL. LESLIE YOUNG OPERATES A BUSINESS CALLED ELIST.ME, WHICH POSTS INFORMATION BY HOMEOWNERS SEEKING TO SELL THEIR HOMES. THESE POSTS ARE THEN PUBLISHED ON WEBSITES OPERATED BY VARIOUS NEWS ORGANIZATIONS. YOUNG DOES NOT OFFER THE HOMEOWNERS REAL ESTATE SALES SERVICES, IS NOT PAID ON COMMISSION, AND IS NEVER CONTACTED BY POTENTIAL BUYERS OR THEIR AGENTS. SHE SIMPLY POSTS INFORMATION PROVIDED TO HER BY HOMESELLERS IN A DATABASE THAT FEEDS INFORMATION TO WEBSITES. NEVERTHELESS, SHE WAS SERVED WITH CEASE-AND-DESIST LETTERS BY THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, ON THE GROUNDS THAT SHE IS PRACTICING REAL ESTATE WITHOUT A LICENSE. THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER STATES THAT SHE IS "ADVERTISING FOR SALE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA," WHICH, THE STATE CLAIMS, QUALIFIES HER AS A "BROKER" UNDER THE REAL ESTATE LICENSE ACT, AND REQUIRES A LICENSE. REPRESENTING MS. YOUNG IN FEDERAL COURT, PLF ATTORNEYS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE SHE IS SOLELY ENGAGED IN THE PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION SHE IS NO MORE A REAL ESTATE AGENT THAN A NEWSPAPER IS WHEN IT PUBLISHES CLASSIFIED ADS. HER ACTIVITIES ARE FULLY PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH. THUS, IF HER ACTIVITIES QUALIFY AS THE PRACTICE OF REAL ESTATE UNDER NEBRASKA LAW, PLF ARGUES THAT THE STATUTE OPERATES AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN ADDITION, BECAUSE THE LICENSING RESTRICTION DOES NOT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, BUT SIMPLY PROTECTS ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES AGAINST LEGITIMATE COMPETITION, IT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL. LIBERTY COINS, LLC, ETA AL. V. DAVID GOODMAN, ET AL. LIBERTY COINS, LLC, BUYS AND SELLS PRECIOUS METALS. IT ADVERTISES WITH SIGNS, NEWSPAPER ADS, AND BUSINESS CARDS. THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFIED THE OWNER THAT HE WAS VIOLATING A STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES A LICENSE FOR PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS. THIS LAW IS APPLIED TO ANYONE ONLY IF THEY ADVERTISE THEIR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. LIBERTY COINS SUED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ALLEGING THAT THE LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH AND IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. THE TRIAL COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, FINDING THAT LICENSING ONLY COMMERCIAL SPEECH, AND NOT THE UNDERLYING ACTIVITY OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS, DID NOT MATERIALLY ADVANCE THE STATE'S SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS. PLF ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY REPRESENTED PETITIONER LIBERTY COINS, ARGUING THAT ADVERTISEMENT OF THE OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTIVITY OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND A LICENSING REQUIREMENT THAT RESTRICTS SUCH ADVERTISING IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY. CASTILLO V INGRAM, ET AL. AFTER SERVING FOR 29 YEARS AS A DETECTIVE WITH THE PALM SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, TROY CASTILLO RETIRED AND STARTED HIS OWN PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR SERVICE. HE OBTAINED LICENSES IN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, AND ARIZONA, AND SET UP SHOP IN HIS CALIFORNIA HOMETOWN. IN 2013, THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE ENACTED AB 306 WHICH PROHIBITS ANYONE FROM OPERATING AS A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR IN NEVADA WITHOUT MAINTAINING A PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE. HOWEVER, WHERE CASTILLO CHOOSES TO KEEP HIS OFFICE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS QUALIFICATIONS. AND YET, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WORKING IN NEVADA,THE LAW REQUIRED CASTILLO TO UNDERGO THE TIME-CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS OF OPENING A NEW OFFICE THERE, FURNISHING IT, AND PAYING RENT OR A MORTGAGE ON IT. THIS LAW PUTS CASTILLO AT A SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE COMPARED TO NEVADA RESIDENTS, WHO ONLY HAVE TO MAINTAIN ONE OFFICE, OR WORK OUT OF THEIR HOMES. WORSE, THE LAW ALSO VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT DEFINES "PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR" SO BROADLY THAT ANY PERSON EMPLOYED TO RESEARCH OR COMMUNICATE INFORMATION ABOUT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, "THE IDENTITY, HABITS, CONDUCT, BUSINESS, OCCUPATION, HONESTY, INTEGRITY, CREDIBILITY, KNOWLEDGE, TRUSTWORTHINESS, EFFICIENCY, LOYALTY, ACTIVITY, MOVEMENT, WHEREABOUTS, AFFILIATIONS, TRANSACTIONS, ACTS, REPUTATION OR CHARACTER OF ANY PERSON," QUALIFIES AS A PI. EVEN JOURNALISTS, GENEALOGISTS, AND TEACHERS WOULD REQUIRE A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSE IN NEVADA UNDER THIS DEFINITION. PLF ATTORNEYS BROUGHT SUIT ARGUING THAT AB 306 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO PROTECT IN-STATE BUSINESSES FROM OUT-OF-STATE COMPETITION, AND AN ILLEGAL "PRIOR RESTRAINT" ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THE STATE MUST HAVE SOME LEGITIMATE REASON (APART FROM PROTECTIONISM) FOR BURDENING CASTILLO'S RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. YET THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. INSTEAD, IT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO DRIVE UP THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR OUT-OF-STATE INVESTIGATORS. RECENTLY, DUE TO THIS LITIGATION, NEVADA REPEALED AB306! THE CRAFTED KEG, LLC V. LAWSON, ET AL CRAFT BREWERS TYPICALLY SELL THEIR BEER VIA 64-OUNCE GROWLERS, WHICH MANY PATRONS COLLECT AND THEN RE-USE TO PURCHASE BEER AT OTHER BREWERIES. IN FLORIDA, HOWEVER, A STATE PACKAGING LAW PROHIBITED THE SALE OR RE-FILLING OF THESE 64OZ GROWLERS BY ANYONE INVOLVED IN THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY ALTHOUGH THEY COULD REFILL 32OZ AND 128OZ CONTAINERS. PLF ATTORNEYS CHALLENGED THIS RESTRICTION AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR IT OTHER THAN PROTECTING THE MARKET FOR LARGE CORPORATE BEER MAKERS. AS A RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS REPEALED THIS LAW. WILSON-PERLMAN V NEVADA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RON AND DANELL PERLMAN ARE ENTREPRENEURS WHO OWN RENO-TAHOE LIMOUSINE COMPANY. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A LICENSE TO OPERATE SEVEN LIMOS IN NEVADA. THEY WANT TO EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS, BUT IN ORDER TO ADD MORE LIMOUSINES, THEY HAVE TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT FIRST. TWO YEARS AGO THE PERLMANS APPLIED FOR A LICENSE TO ADD EIGHT MORE VEHICLES TO THEIR FLEET, BUT UNDER NEVADA LAW, COMPETITORS CAN OBJECT AND ESSENTIALLY VETO THE LICENSE. ONE OF THE PERLMAN'S COMPETITORS PROTESTED THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH TRIGGERED AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AT WHICH THE PERLMANS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE "NECESSITY" OF THEIR BUSINESS AND THAT THEY WOULDN'T COMPETE WITH EXISTING BUSINESSES. AS A RESULT, THE STATE DENIED THEIR APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WOULD COMPETE WITH OTHER LIMOUSINE OPERATORS. STEVEN AND PATRICK SAXON ARE MOVERS IN THE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA AREA WHO WANT TO OPEN A BRANCH IN NEVADA, BUT THEY ALSO MUST FIRST NAVIGATE THE COMPETITOR'S VETO PROCESS. TOGETHER, THESE FOUR INDIVIDUALS ARE CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NEVADA'S ANTI-COMPETITIVE LICENSING PROCESS WHICH PERMITS THEIR COMPETITORS TO VETO THEIR RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. YELLOW CAB CO. OF LOUISVILLE V. COOK & REEVES WHEELCHAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC. AFTER PLF'S SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO KENTUCKY'S COMPETITOR'S VETO LAW APPLYING TO MOVERS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, THE STATE DECIDED TO APPLY THE RULING TO OTHER TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES. YELLOW CAB SUED TO RESTORE THE COMPETITOR'S VETO TO THE TAXI INDUSTRY AND PLF IS ARGUING THAT THE STATE ACTED BOTH CONSTITUTIONALLY AND RESPONSIBLY. MCLEAN V CITY OF ALEXANDRIA SCOTT MCLEAN WANTED TO SELL HIS TRUCK. HE WANTED TO LEAVE A FOR-SALE SIGN IN IT WHEN HE PARKED IT ON PUBLIC STREETS IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINA, BUT A CITY ORDINANCE SUBJECTED HIM TO FINES AND TOWING IF HE DID SO. THE LAW DOESN'T BAN OTHER KINDS OF SIGNS - "PROUD PARENT OF HONOR ROLL STUDENT," "VOTE FOR PEDRO," "DRINK COKE," OR "CENTURY 21" SIGNS ARE ALL ALLOWED. THE CITY ORDINANCE SINGLED OUT ONE TYPE OF SPEECH AND BANNED IT. REPRESENTING HIM IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT, PLF ATTORNEYS ARGUED THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT PROHIBITED SPEECH BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THE MESSAGE. AS A RESULT, THE CITY HAS REPEALED ITS ORDINANCE
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENT FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ENTHUSIASTS IN CHALLENGING THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE'S ILLEGAL DECISION TO BAR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES FROM HUNDREDS OF MILES OF ROADS AND TRAILS IN THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY OPEN TO OFF-ROAD ENTHUSIASTS. THE SERVICE'S ACTION CAME THROUGH ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2005 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE FOR THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST. PLF ARGUES THE SERVICE VIOLATED THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT BY FAILING TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE HUMAN IMPACTS OF PROHIBITING ACCESS TO MORE THAN 800 MILES OF FORMERLY ACCESSIBLE TRAILS, FAILING TO CONDUCT A SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE ROUTES AT ISSUE, AND IMPROPERLY PREJUDICING OFF-ROAD RECREATION IN DEVELOPING THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE REGULATORY DECISION. FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS AS WELL AS OTHER RECREATION GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATED THROUGHOUT THE NEPA PROCESS, AND ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS VOLUNTEERED MUCH TIME FILING THE GROUPS' ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND TURNED TO PLF BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO CARRY FORWARD THE LITIGATION ON THEIR OWN. AS THESE GROUPS CONSIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO ENJOY OFF-ROAD RECREATION AND THE OUTDOORS EXPERIENCE, THEY FEAR THE FOREST SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THEIR ACCESS TO THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST. THE CASE IS MOVING FORWARD IN THE TRIAL COURT. BAY AREA CITIZENS V. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS AND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENT BAY AREA CITIZENS, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS, IN CHALLENGING PLAN BAY AREA, A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT WOULD SQUEEZE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO CROWDED, HIGH-DENSITY ZONES. PLAN BAY AREA AIMS TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FOR THE REGION, THROUGH "STACK AND PACK" DEVELOPMENT, MANDATING THAT MOST FUTURE HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT BE CRAMMED INTO ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE REGION'S SURFACE AREA. THE PLAN VIOLATES THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), BECAUSE THE DRAFTING AGENCIES FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS. THEY STUDIOUSLY IGNORED DATA THAT SHOWS HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS AREN'T NEEDED IN ORDER TO MEET THE REGION'S TARGETS FOR GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION. ALSO IN VIOLATION OF CEQA, THE AGENCIES REFUSED TO CONSIDER CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO THEIR DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT AND PEOPLE'S LIFESTYLES. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL. DUARTE NURSERY V. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD PLF SUED THE CORPS OVER ITS ISSUANCE OF A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO THE OWNER OF A WHEAT FARM IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE CORPS SAID THE FARMER WAS FARMING IN PROTECTED WETLANDS - A CONTENTION THE FARMER DISPUTES BUT HAS BEEN GIVEN NO WAY TO GO TO COURT TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER. (INSTEAD HE MUST APPLY FOR AN EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING PERMIT THAT HE DOESN'T THINK HE NEEDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.) PLF IS ARGUING THAT AFTER A LANDOWNER IS ORDERED TO STOP FARMING, HE IS ENTITLED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO A HEARING BEFORE A NEUTRAL JUDGE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE ARE ACTUALLY ANY PROTECTED WETLANDS AT STAKE. AFTER THE COURT REFUSED TO THROW OUT DUARTE'S DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT, THE CORPS TURNED AROUND AND COUNTERSUED FOR THE SUPPOSED CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS. IN RESPONSE PLF FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT ALLEGING A RETALIATORY ACTION BY THE CORPS WE ALLEGE THAT THE CORPS WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION IF DUARTE NURSERY AND ITS OFFICERS HAD NOT EXERCISED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY SUING OVER THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, AND BY SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CORPS' ACTIONS IN PRINT, RADIO, AND TELEVISION INTERVIEWS.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	HAWKES CO. V. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS THROUGH A "JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION," THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNATED PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HAWKES CO., INC., PIERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, AND LPF PROPERTIES, IN MINNESOTA, AS "WETLANDS" OVER WHICH THE CORPS HAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY. HAWKES DISPUTED THIS FINDING AND SOUGHT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS. THE THRESHOLD ISSUE IS WHETHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BRING A COURT CHALLENGE TO SUCH A REGULATORY FINDING. PLF REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON APPEAL, AND ARGUED THAT JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS ("WETLANDS" DESIGNATIONS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT) ARE FINAL AGENCY ACTIONS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN ATTEMPTING TO HOLD CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATORS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE COURTS FOR THEIR DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER PROPERTY IS WETLANDS OR NOT, AND WHERE THEY HAVE REGULATORY POWER, THIS CASE FOLLOWS UP ON OUR VICTORY IN SACKETT V. EPA. IN THAT LANDMARK 2012 DECISION, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MAY APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THE JUDICIARY FROM A FEDERAL WETLANDS "COMPLIANCE ORDER." RECENTLY, THE 8TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH PLF AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO SEEK SUPREME COURT REVIEW. UNIVERSAL WELDING, INC,. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL WELDING, A SMALL FAMILY-RUN-AND-OWNED STEEL FABRICATION BUSINESS BASED IN NORTH POLE, ALASKA. THE ACTION, AGAINST THE US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS, CHALLENGES THAT AGENCY'S ASSERTION OF CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION OVER 14 ACRES OF WHAT THE CORPS HAS DEEMED "LOW-QUALITY" WETLANDS THAT LIE ON UNIVERSAL WELDING'S PROPERTY. PLF'S LAWSUIT CONTENDS THAT THESE PUTATIVE WETLANDS ARE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE CORPS TO REGULATE BECAUSE THEY ARE ADJACENT TO OTHER JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM REGULATION UNDER THE CORPS' OWN REGULATIONS. THE CASE RELIES ON A PRIOR PLF VICTORY FROM THE SAME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GREAT NORTHWEST, INC. V. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THAT CASE HELD THAT PROPERTY THAT IS SEPARATED FROM A JURISDICTIONAL WATER BY TWO MAN-MADE BARRIERS, WITH WETLANDS IN BETWEEN EACH BARRIER, IS NON-JURISDICTIONAL. IN UNIVERSAL WELDING'S CASE, THE CORPS CONTENDS THAT GREAT NORTHWEST IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE UNIVERSAL WELDING'S PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM OTHER WETLANDS BY ONLY ONE MAN-MADE BARRIER (A COUNTY ROAD). PLF'S LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT THIS IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. SISSEL V. U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION LAUNCHED AN AMENDED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE FEDERAL AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (OBAMACARE). THE ACA IMPOSES A CHARGE ON AMERICANS WHO FAIL TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE (A CHARGE THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RECENTLY CHARACTERIZED AS A FEDERAL TAX). PLF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THIS PURPORTED TAX IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE RATHER THAN THE HOUSE, AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION'S ORIGINATION CLAUSE FOR NEW REVENUE-RAISING BILLS (ARTICLE I, SECTION 7). THE ORIGINATION CLAUSE ARGUMENT IS MADE IN AN AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED IN PLF'S ONGOING LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ACA, SISSEL V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES. PLF'S LAWSUIT WAS ON HOLD WHILE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE CHALLENGE TO THE ACA FROM THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS (NFIB) AND 26 STATES, IN NFIB V. SEBELIUS. AS INITIALLY FILED, PLF'S SISSEL LAWSUIT TARGETED THE ACA'S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE AS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S COMMERCE CLAUSE (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8). THE SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH THIS POSITION, IN THE NFIB RULING, BUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, JOINED BY FOUR JUSTICES, CHARACTERIZED THE ACA'S CHARGE AS A FEDERAL "TAX," BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A PAYMENT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM PEOPLE WHO DECIDE NOT TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT HOLDING PROMPTED PLF'S NEW CAUSE OF ACTION. IF THE CHARGE FOR NOT BUYING INSURANCE IS SEEN AS A FEDERAL TAX, THEN A NEW QUESTION MUST BE ASKED. WHEN LAWMAKERS PASSED THE ACA, WITH ALL OF ITS TAXES, DID THEY FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION'S "ORIGINATION CLAUSE" PROCEDURES FOR REVENUE INCREASES? THE SUPREME COURT WASN'T ASKED AND DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS QUESTION IN THE NFIB CASE BUT DID ALLUDE TO IT. THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION WAS OBEYED HAS NOW WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH THE DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE THE COURT ISSUED AN OPINION UNDERCUTTING THE ORIGINATION CLAUSE. PLF IS PREPARING A PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR IT TO HEAR THIS MOST IMPORTANT CASE. PARTIAL LISTING OF CASES WHERE PLF DEDICATED RESOURCES DURING 2014 THROUGH AMICUS BRIEFS: COMMON SENSE ALLIANCE V. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD BEESON V. CITY OF PALMER, ALASKA KRAMER V. CITY OF LAKE OSEWEGO CITY OF KIRKLAND V. POTALA VILLAGE KIRKLAND, LLC PORRETTO V. TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER UNITED STATES V. HAGE CITY OF PERRIS V. STAMPER HORNE V. U.S. DEPT AGRICULTURE LBLHA, LLC V. TOWN OF LONG BEACH, INDIANA KURTZ V. VERIZON NEW YORK LOST TREE VILLAGE CORP. V. UNITED STATES GRIEPENBURG V. TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN, ET AL. OCEAN PALM GOLF CLUB PARTNERSHIP V. CITY OF FLAGLER BEACH CENTURY EXPLORATION NEW ORLEANS, LLC, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ABIGAIL FISHER V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MIDWEST FENCE CORP. V. UNITED STATES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION EEOC V. FREEMAN MARGERUM V. CITY OF BUFFALO DUNNET BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. HANNIG ROTHE DEVELOPMENT, INC., V. DEPT OF DEFENSE AND SMALL BUSINESS TEXAS DEPT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS V. INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INC. EEOC V. CATASTROPHE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS V. ALABAMA LARUE V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS V WASHINGTON MAGEE V. BOYD RICHARDSON V STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HART V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FAASSE V SCOTT MCCALL V. SCOTT SANCHEZ V. VALENCIA HOLDING CO., LLC CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES, LLC VS. ISKANIAN WEBB V. SPECIAL ELECTRIC CO., INC. FRIEDRICHS V. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION FOWLER V. CARMAX GENIE INDUSTRIES V. RICKY MATAK, ET AL. SPOKEO V. ROBINS RAMOS V. BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA KESNER V. SUPERIOR COURT (PNEUMO ABEX LLC) HAVER V. BNSF RAILWAY CO. PLAINS EXPLORATIONS & PRODUCTIONS CO. V. TORCH ENERGY ADVISORS, INC. IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION (DUMMIT V. A.W. CHESTERTON AND CRANE CO.) ATALESE V. UNITED STATES LEGAL SERVICES GROUP, L.P. LIMONES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LEE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION V. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SISKIYOU COUNTY FARM BUREAU V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME BIRON FAMILY LIVING TRUST V. CITY OF REDDING DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY V. SALAZAR (JEWELL) ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION V., COREY GALLAGHER & HENRY V. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STURGEON V. MASSICA UNITED STATES V. OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO LIGHT V. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES EPA CONSERVATION CONGRESS V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ET AL. NORTH DAKOTA V. HEYDINGER CHRISTIE V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ET AL. COONS V. LEW CHEATHAM V. GORDON ROSEBROCK V. MATHIS BIGGS V. BREWER WEST VIRGINIA V. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES YATES V. UNITED STATES
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11	THE TAX PREPARER AND PLF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROVIDE THE FORM 990 TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. ALONG WITH PROVIDING EACH TRUSTEE A COPY OF THE FORM 990, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE ANY CONCERNS AND/OR ASK QUESTIONS PRIOR TO THE FILING DATE. A DEADLINE IS GIVEN TO THE TRUSTEES TO INSURE TIMELY FILING OF THE TAX RETURN.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C	EACH TIME A NEW CASE COMES UP, PLF CHECKS FOR CONFLICTS. EACH DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD, IF SOMEONE HAS A CONFLICT, THE BOARD MEMBER WILL ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE AND/OR DISCUSSION. ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THE TRUSTEES REVIEW THE POLICY PROVIDING WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15	COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD MEETS ANNUALLY AND USES COMPARABILITY DATA PROVIDED BY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO DETERMINE THAT THE COMPENSATION DOES NOT EXCEED THE LEVEL OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19	COPIES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ORGANIZATIONS WEBSITE OR UPON REQUEST.
FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9:	SFAS NO.247 ADJUSTMENT FOR SPLIT INTEREST AGREEMENTS 30,819.
FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C:	NO CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR

Return Reference

Explanation

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A

DANIEL AND MARIA LEVIN V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PLF IS CHALLENGING SAN FRANCISCO'S NEW "RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENT ORDINANCE", BECAUSE IT REQUIRES RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY THEIR TENANTS OPPRESSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUMS OF MONEY BEFORE THE OWNERS CAN REGAIN PERSONAL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY (MONEY THE TENANTS CAN USE FOR ANY PRIVATE PURPOSE THEY WISH). PLF ATTORNEYS FILED THE CHALLENGE ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS DANIEL AND MARIA LEVIN, A MARRIED COUPLE WHO OWN A SMALL TWO-UNIT, 2-STORY HOUSE ON LOMBARD STREET. THEY LIVE IN THE UPPER UNIT, BUT ARE EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE RIGHT TO TAKE OCCUPANCY OF THE LOWER UNIT, BECAUSE OF THE COSTLY "TENANT RELOCATION" FEE ($117,000, IN THEIR CASE) REQUIRED BY THE NEW ORDINANCE. PLF ATTORNEYS ALSO REPRESENT TWO ASSOCIATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS (THE SAN FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION AND THE COALITION FOR BETTER HOUSING) AND PARKLANE ASSOCIATES, OWNER OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE. PLF WON A VICTORY IN THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT THAT RULED THE FEE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE CITY HAS APPEALED. LIPPMAN V. CITY OF OAKLAND CALIFORNIA LAW GUARANTEES EVERY INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO AN APPEAL OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS TO A NEUTRAL APPEALS BOARD OR THE CITY COUNCIL. OAKLAND HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS THIS RIGHT, DESPITE A RECENT GRAND JURY REPORT CONDEMNING ITS BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION FOR ITS ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT AND ABUSIVE APPEAL PROCEDURES. INSTEAD, OAKLAND ONLY ALLOWS AN APPEAL TO A HEARING OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. PLF IS REPRESENTING THOMAS LIPPMAN, AN OAKLAND LANDLORD, IN A CHALLENGE TO THIS UNFAIR PROCESS AND CONTESTING THE IMPOSITION OF MORE THAN $10,000 IN FEES WITHOUT EVER GIVING HIM A PROPER STATE LAW-REQUIRED APPEAL. NIES V. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE THE NIES OWN A HOME AND LAND ALONG THE BEACH IN THE TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. UNDER TRADITIONAL NORTH CAROLINA LAW, THE "WET" BEACH IS PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT THE DRY SAND AREA LYING UPLAND OF THE WET BEACH (WHERE THE NIES' PROPERTY IS LOCATED) IS PRIVATELY OWNED. THE TOWN HAS, HOWEVER, RECENTLY ADOPTED SEVERAL ORDINANCES THAT MAKE ALL PRIVATE DRY SAND AREAS INTO A ROAD AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE TOWN AND GENERAL PUBLIC. ONE TOWN LAW CREATES A TWENTY-FOOT EXPRESS LANE ON THE NIES' DRY SAND PROPERTY FOR TOWN VEHICLES OF ALL VARIETIES. GARBAGE TRUCKS, POLICE CARS, AND TOWN ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES NOW REGULARLY CROSS THE NIES' PROPERTY UNDER PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF THE LAW. THE SECOND TOWN ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO DRIVE AND PARK ON THE NIES' DRY SAND PROPERTY FOR MUCH OF THE YEAR UPON PAYING A FEE TO THE TOWN. GARBAGE AND UNSAFE TIRE RUTS ARE LEFT BEHIND. THE TOWN HAS NEVER COMPENSATED THE NIES' FOR THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR LAND AS A ROAD. THEREFORE, THE NIES SUED THE TOWN IN STATE COURT, ARGUING THAT THE TOWN IS TAKING ITS PROPERTY, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. AFTER LOSING IN THE TRIAL COURT, THE NIES HAVE APPEALED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE COURT TO DIRECTLY REPRESENT THE NIES IN THEIR FIGHT TO BE FREE FROM AN UNCOMPENSATED PHYSICAL INVASION OF THEIR PROPERTY BY THE PUBLIC. AT THE CORE OF THE CASE IS THE TOWN'S CLAIM THAT PRIVATE DRY BEACH AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO AN IMPLICIT "PUBLIC TRUST" EASEMENT UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW THAT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC (AND TOWN) TO USE THOSE AREAS AT WILL. THE TOWN CLAIMS ITS LAWS HAVE TAKEN NOTHING FROM THE NIES BECAUSE IT BELIEVES THE TITLE TO THEIR DRY SAND AREAS HAS ALWAYS BEEN BURDENED BY PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS THAT THE TOWN MAY ENFORCE. UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE TOWN, STATE LAW SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT. THE PUBLIC DOES HAVE BEACH RIGHTS - BUT ONLY ON STATE-OWNED WET BEACHES SEAWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE. UPLAND AREAS LIKE THE NIES' PROPERTY ARE FULLY PRIVATE. AS A RESULT, THE TOWN MUST CONDEMN THAT PROPERTY IF IT WANTS ACCESS. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT V. COY A. KOONTZ COY A. KOONTZ WANTS TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL LAND, PART OF WHICH LIES WITHIN A RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION ZONE IN ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. HE APPLIED FOR A DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT WITH THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. ST. JOHNS AGREED TO GRANT THE PERMIT, BUT ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT HE PLACE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER MUCH OF HIS LAND, AND PERFORM MITIGATION OFF-SITE BY REPLACING CULVERTS AND PLUGGING CERTAIN DRAINAGE CANALS ON OTHER PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE STATE AND MILES AWAY FROM THE KOONTZ'S PROPERTY. WHEN KOONTZ REFUSED TO PERFORM THE OFF-SITE MITIGATION, ST. JOHNS DENIED THE PERMIT. KOONTZ FILED AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION SUIT IN CIRCUIT COURT. KOONTZ ARGUED THAT THE OFF-SITE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT VIOLATED NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND DOLAN V. TIGARD. THE CIRCUIT COURT APPLIED NOLLAN AND DOLAN, HOLDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT BORE NO CONNECTION TO THE PROJECT'S ALLEGED IMPACTS ON THE RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION ZONE. THE COURT AWARDED KOONTZ COMPENSATION FOR A TEMPORARY TAKING. THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, BUT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REVERSED. THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NO TAKING UNDER NOLLAN AND DOLAN HAD OCCURRED, BECAUSE (1) NOLLAN AND DOLAN APPLY ONLY TO FORCED DEDICATIONS OF INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY (NOT TO MITIGATION WORK); AND (2) NOLLAN AND DOLAN APPLY ONLY WHEN GOVERNMENT APPROVES AND ISSUES A PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS (NOT WHEN IT DENIES A PERMIT, AND THEREFORE NOTHING HAS BEEN DEMANDED OF OR TAKEN FROM THE LANDOWNER). PLF FILED A PETITION TO CERTIORARI ON BEHALF OF KOONTZ IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WHICH WAS GRANTED AFTER WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT: (1) NOLLAN AND DOLAN APPLY TO AN EXACTION WHERE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS THAT THE APPLICANT PAY FOR OFF-SITE MITIGATION; AND (2) THE NOLLAN/DOLAN DOCTRINES EXTEND TO PERMIT EXACTIONS EVEN WHERE THE PERMIT WAS NOT ISSUED DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S REJECTION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTION. THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE THE FLORIDA COURTS FOR A DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES. KENTNER, ET AL. V. CITY OF SANIBEL THE CITY OF SANIBEL, FLORIDA, ENACTED AN ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS NEW CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS AND ACCESSORY PIERS WITHIN AN AREA FRONTING SAN CARLOS BAY. THE PETITIONERS (OWNERS OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY) CHALLENGED THE ORDINANCE, CLAIMING THAT THE OUTRIGHT BAN ON NEW DOCKS VIOLATES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT TRADITIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY DUE PROCESS, AND GRANTED SANIBEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LAWSUIT. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, CONCLUDING THAT, AS A MATTER OF CIRCUIT LAW, TRADITIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT AMONG THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. PLF'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI NOTES THAT THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY, AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. PLF ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY REPRESENT THE KENTNERS AND SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE AS A VIOLATION OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. BREINIG V. MARTIN COUNTY THREE YEARS AGO, THE BREINIGS BOUGHT FLASH BEACH GRILLE IN HOBE SOUND, FLORIDA. THEY SOUGHT A PERMIT TO EXPAND THEIR RESTAURANT AND LEARNED THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT GRANT IT BECAUSE EXPANSION WOULD VIOLATE THE COUNTY'S UNRECORDED CONSERVATION EASEMENT, CREATED IN 1990 BY THE PRIOR OWNERS. HOWEVER, STATE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT ENFORCEMENT OF SECRET UNRECORDED EASEMENTS AGAINST INNOCENT BUYERS LIKE THE BREINIGS. PLF REPRESENTED THE BREINIGS IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST TO NULLIFY THE EASEMENT AND REQUIRE THE PERMIT BE ISSUED. ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY CAPITULATED BY GRANTING THE PERMIT.

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A

STEWART AND JASPER ORCHARDS V. JEWELL, ET AL IN A MISGUIDED PROGRAM TO HELP A FISH THAT'S ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LIST (THE DELTA SMELT) FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS HAVE SEVERELY CUT THE PUMPING INTO THE WATER SYSTEM THAT SERVES MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THESE ARE THE MOST DRASTIC CUTS EVER TO CALIFORNIA WATER HAVING THE BIGGEST IMPACT ANYWHERE IN THE NATION ACCORDING TO CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES. WHILE FARMS AND BUSINESSES ARE RECEIVING LITTLE CONTRACTED FOR WATER, MORE THAN 81-BILLION GALLONS OF WATER ARE FLOWING OUT TO THE OCEAN UNDER FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS. THAT'S ENOUGH WATER TO PUT 85,000 ACRES OF FARMLAND BACK INTO PRODUCTION. IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURAL HEARTLAND, THOUSANDS OF JOBS ARE THREATENED BY THE PUMPING CUTBACKS. IN SOME URBAN COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WATER RATES HAVE SKYROCKETED AND RATIONING IS A PROSPECT. MOREOVER, IN A REAL SENSE, NATIONAL SECURITY IS ALSO AT ISSUE: BY KEEPING WATER FROM AMERICA'S BREADBASKET, WE BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN SOURCES FOR THE MOST BASIC NEED OF LIFE: FOOD. REPRESENTING FARMERS AFFECTED BY THE WATER CUTBACKS, PLF BROUGHT A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ARGUING THAT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE SMELT WATER CUTBACKS, AS WELL AS QUESTIONING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE A NONCOMMERCIAL, INTRASTATE SPECIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION'S COMMERCE CLAUSE. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING V. DEPT OF FISH & GAME THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (CDFN) IMPOSED SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS ON FISH STOCKING COMPANIES (INCLUDING HATCHERIES AND PRIVATE FISHING LAKES AND PONDS) THAT WOULD THREATEN THEIR ABILITY TO STAY IN BUSINESS. THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON THE UNSCIENTIFIC PREMISE THAT ANY STOCKED FISH, EVEN IN PRIVATE SELF CONTAINED LAKES, HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON INDIGENOUS SPECIES AND HABITAT. PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTED THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING (CARF) IN CHALLENGING THESE REGULATIONS. CARF IS A PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATION WHOSE MEMBERS INCLUDE PRIVATE FISH HATCHERIES AND FISHING LAKE OPERATORS AS WELL AS PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN AND WOMEN, AS WELL AS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS V., U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS WAS FORMED BY RESIDENTS OF SOUTHWESTERN UTAH WHO HAVE SUFFERED FOR DECADES UNDER EXTREMELY BURDENSOME ESA REGULATIONS REGARDING THE UTAH PRAIRIE DOG. RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM BUILDING HOMES, STARTING BUSINESSES, AND PROTECTING THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE RODENT. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CEDAR CITY) HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROTECT RECREATIONAL FIELDS, THE LOCAL AIRPORT, AND THE CEMETERY FROM THE BARKING, TUNNELING, BURROWING CREATURE. LIKE ALL OF US, THE ORGANIZATION DOESN'T WANT TO SEE THE SPECIES GO EXTINCT. HOWEVER, WOULD LIKE THE PRAIRIE DOGS TO BE MOVED FROM RESIDENTIAL AND DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOODS TO NATURAL AREAS ON PUBLIC LANDS. UNDER ESA REGULATIONS, DOING SO WOULD BE A CRIME. THE IMPACTS OF THE REGULATION ARE SO SEVERE BECAUSE THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 40,000 PRAIRIE DOGS IN THIS SMALL REGION - A NEAR DOUBLING IN POPULATION FROM WHERE IT WAS A FEW DECADES AGO. THREE QUARTERS OF THESE ANIMALS ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. PLF REPRESENTS PETPO AND ARGUES THT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CONDUCT AFFECTING THE UTAH PRAIRIE DOG. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE REGULATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SPECIES IS FOUND ONLY IN UTAH AND IS INVOLVED IN NO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, STATES ARE CHARGED WITH REGULATING LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES LIKE THIS. THE DISTRICT COURT AGREED WITH PLF AND STRUCK DOWN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATION, AND SINCE THEN, THE STATE OF UTAH HAS SET OUT TO SHOW THAT IT CAN PROTECT THE ANIMAL WITHOUT IMPOSING SUCH SEVERE BURDENS ON INDIVIDUALS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS APPEALED. COALITION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION (PLF) HAS PETITIONED THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER FROM THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LIST.THE GNATCATCHER'S LISTING AS "THREATENED" ON THE ESA LIST HAS LED TO SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE ACROSS VAST AREAS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE SERVICE ITSELF HAS ESTIMATED THAT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS WILL COST OVER $900 MILLION BY YEAR 2025. THE PLF PETITION URGED THE REMOVAL OF THE GNATCATCHER FROM THE ESA LIST ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SPECIES IS NOT ACTUALLY THREATENED. RATHER, BIOLOGICAL STUDIES HAVE FOUND THAT THE GNATCATCHER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS PART OF THE SAME SPECIES OF GNATCATCHER THAT EXISTS IN ABUNDANCE IN MEXICO. THE DELISTING PETITION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, THE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ACCURACY & RELIABILITY (CESAR), AND THE COALITION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURE, AND BUSINESS (COLAB). MARKLE V. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CAN FEDERAL OFFICIALS LABEL PRIVATE PROPERTY AS "CRITICAL HABITAT" FOR AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, WHEN IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROPERTY IS USELESS FOR THE SPECIES, AND MAY NEVER BE USABLE HABITAT? THIS IS WHAT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HAS DONE IN THE MATTER OF THE DUSKY GOPHER FROG IN THE GULF COAST REGION. IN JUNE, 2012, WHEN THE AGENCY DESIGNATED "CRITICAL HABITAT" FOR THE SPECIES, REGULATORS STRETCHED THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BEYOND ANY PREVIOUS INTERPRETATION BY INCLUDING 1,544 ACRES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA, THAT IS MANIFESTLY UNSUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE FROG. IN FACT, THE SERVICE ITSELF ADMITS AS MUCH. THE DESIGNATION OF THIS FORESTED AREA IS BASED ON PURE SPECULATION THAT THE LAND MIGHT SOMEDAY BE MANAGED BY PRIVATE PARTIES FOR THE SPECIES' CONSERVATION. HOWEVER, THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS AREA SUITABLE FOR HABITAT IS THROUGH CONTROLLED BURNS AND REVEGETATION, WHICH THE SERVICE ADMITS IT CANNOT MANDATE ON PRIVATE LAND. PLF IS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY'S OWNERS IN CHALLENGING THIS UNJUSTIFIED FEDERAL TARGETING OF THEIR LAND. UNDER THE ESA, CRITICAL HABITAT MUST ACTUALLY CONTAIN THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIES. IF PROPERTY CAN BE DESIGNATED EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T USABLE AS HABITAT AND HAS NO ESSENTIAL FEATURES, THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OR LOCATION OF PRIVATE LAND THAT CAN BE ROPED OFF BY FEDERAL DECREE. REGULATORS CAN IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON ANYONE'S PROPERTY, ANYWHERE, MERELY BY CLAIMING IT COULD SOMEDAY, IN SOME SPECULATIVE WAY, BE USED FOR SPECIES RECOVERY. THIS CASE IS ON APPEAL.

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A

CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMMISSION, CALIFORNIA ABALONE ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA LOBSTER AND TRAP FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN OF SANTA BARBARA V. JACOBSON, ET AL. CONCERNED THAT OIL SPILLS THREATENED TO WIPE OUT THE SEA OTTER THROUGH ITS ENTIRE RANGE, THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUGHT PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS TO CREATE AN EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION OF OTTERS TO BE LOCATED ON SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND, WHICH COULD BE USED TO REPOPULATE THE RANGE IN THE EVENT OF AN OIL SPILL. THE SERVICE NEEDED EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM, WHICH IT RECEIVED. BUT BECAUSE OTTERS CAN DESTROY SHELL FISHERIES DUE TO THEIR VORACIOUS APPETITES, THE PUBLIC LAW THAT AUTHORIZED THE PROGRAM (99 P.L. 625), STRUCK A CAREFUL BALANCE BETWEEN THE SEA OTTERS AND THE LOCAL FISHERIES THAT WOULD BE THREATENED IF THE OTTERS EXPANDED FROM SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND. CONGRESS COMMANDED THE SERVICE TO ESTABLISH A MANAGEMENT ZONE AROUND THE EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION. CONGRESS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THE SERVICE TO REMOVE OTTERS FOUND IN THIS AREA, AND EXEMPTED ANY INCIDENTAL TAKES IN THE ZONE. THE SERVICE SET UP A TRANSLOCATION PROGRAM IN 1987 AND, INITIALLY, COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. IN 1993, HOWEVER, THE SERVICE DECIDED TO STOP ALL CONTAINMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT ZONE. ON DECEMBER 19, 2012, THE SERVICE PUBLISHED A FINAL RULE FORMALLY TERMINATING THE MANAGEMENT ZONE AND THE INCIDENTAL TAKE EXEMPTION. IN EFFECT, THE SERVICE DECIDED TO RENEGE ON THE COMPROMISE STRUCK BY CONGRESS WITH FISHERMEN. THE UNCHECKED SPREAD OF THE SOUTHERN SEA OTTER INTO THE MANAGEMENT ZONE WILL HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, FISHERIES, AND INDUSTRY. THE SEA OTTER VORACIOUSLY CONSUMES SHELLFISH, INCLUDING ENDANGERED ABALONE. THE CALIFORNIA ABALONE ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE STATE TO LIFT A MORATORIUM ON ABALONE DIVING BUT IF THE SEA OTTER CONTINUES TO SPREAD, THIS WORK WILL BE FOR NAUGHT BECAUSE THE SEA OTTER WILL LIKELY WIPE OUT THE ABALONE POPULATION. THE SEA OTTER ALSO CONSUMES SEA URCHIN, AND ITS UNCHECKED MOVE INTO THE MANAGEMENT ZONE WILL ALSO DEVASTATE SEA URCHIN FISHERIES. THERE ARE MANY LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON A THRIVING FISHERY, INCLUDING FISHERMEN AND BUSINESSES THAT PROCESS THE CATCH WHICH WILL BE DEVASTATED BY THE SERVICE'S ACTION.REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMMISSION, THE CALIFORNIA ABALONE ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA LOBSTER AND TRAP FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION, AND THE COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN OF SANTA BARBARA IN A LAWSUIT, PLF ARGUES THAT THE SERVICE HAD NO ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE THE SEA OTTER MANAGEMENT ZONE AROUND SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND. SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC. V. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE IN THIS ACTION, PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENT SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC., A NONPROFIT COALITION AND PARTNERSHIP OF FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, YOUNG PARENTS, RETIREES, CAREER PROFESSIONALS, BUSINESS OWNERS, RESIDENTS, AND COMMUNITY LEADERS WHO ARE UNITED IN THEIR COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE UNIQUE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER, CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA.ON BEHALF OF SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC., PLF PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) TO DOWNLIST WEST INDIAN MANATEE (TRICHECHUS MANATUS) FROM ENDANGERED TO THREATENED SPECIES. PLF CONTENDS THAT USFWS HAS A LEGAL DUTY, UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, TO IMPLEMENT THIS DOWNLISTING, BECAUSE THE SPECIES NO LONGER QUALIFIES AS ENDANGERED, ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY'S OWN FINDINGS. IN 2007, WHEN USFWS CONDUCTED A 5-YEAR REVIEW OF THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE, WHICH INCLUDES THE SUB-SPECIES FLORIDA AND ANTILLEAN MANATEE, THE AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT DOWNLISTING FROM ENDANGERED TO THREATENED WAS WARRANTED. THE 5-YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENT, REQUIRED BY THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA), ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO ASCERTAIN, ON A REGULAR BASIS, WHETHER A LISTED SPECIES STILL REQUIRES ESA PROTECTIONS AND, IF SO AT WHAT LEVEL. THE 2007 REVIEW RECOMMENDED THAT THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE BE DOWNLISTED FROM ITS CURRENT ENDANGERED STATUS TO THE STATUS OF THREATENED. THE REVIEW RELIED HEAVILY UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWC). MORE THAN FIVE YEARS PASSED SINCE THE AGENCY MADE ITS FINDINGS, BUT USFWS MADE NO EFFORT TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DOWNLIST THE SPECIES. THIS DELAY PROMPTED PLF'S PETITION ON BEHALF OF SAVE CRYSTAL RIVER, INC., TO DOWNLIST THE MANATEE. THE MORNING STAR PACKING COMPANY, ET AL., V. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ATTORNEYS WITH PLF HAVE CHALLENGED CALIFORNIA'S "CAP AND TRADE" AUCTION REGULATION. THE REGULATION CREATES A QUARTERLY AUCTION PROGRAM REQUIRING MANY CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS TO BID SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONTINUING TO EMIT CARBON DIOXIDE OR BE FACED WITH CLOSING THEIR DOORS IN CALIFORNIA, LAYING OFF THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND MOVING THEIR BUSINESSES TO OTHER STATES. FILED ON BEHALF OF A BROAD SPECTRUM OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS HARMED BY THE REGULATION, THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE AUCTION PROCESS AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE TAX BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ENACTED BY TWO-THIRDS MAJORITIES IN BOTH CHAMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, AS REQUIRED FOR NEW TAXES BY THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (PROPOSITION 13 AND PROPOSITION 26). AS PLF'S COMPLAINT STATES, THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB) DEVISED THE AUCTION PLAN AS A MEANS OF RAISING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REVENUE, WITHOUT ANY INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION FROM THE LEGISLATURE. CARB HATCHED THE AUCTION PROGRAM PURPORTEDLY TO IMPLEMENT AB 32, THE 2006 LEGISLATION THAT REQUIRES REDUCTIONS IN THE EMISSION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN CALIFORNIA BY THE YEAR 2020. BUT NOTHING IN AB 32 AUTHORIZES CREATION OF AN AUCTION PROCESS TO SELL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION ALLOWANCES FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. NOR DOES AB 32 AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF ANY KIND OF NEW TAX. THIS CASE IS ON APPEAL. SHEA V. KERRY UNDER THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S MID-LEVEL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN (MLAAP), THE DEPARTMENT HIRED ENTRY-LEVEL, SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITIES DIRECTLY INTO A MID-LEVEL POSITION. WILLIAM SHEA, A WHITE MALE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, ARGUING THAT HE WAS SUBJECTED TO UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE MLAAP BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT SHEA BEARS THE BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE RACE-BASED PROGRAM WAS ILLEGAL, AND HE FAILED TO CARRY THAT BURDEN OF PROOF. THE COURT NOTED THAT HAD MR. SHEA BROUGHT HIS CLAIM UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE GOVERNMENT'S BURDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER, AND HE WOULD HAVE PREVAILED. REPRESENTING MR. SHEA ON APPEAL, ATTORNEYS FOR PLF CONTEND THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES A RACE-BASED HIRING PLAN, IT MUST BEAR THE BURDEN OF SHOWING WHY THE PROGRAM IS NECESSARY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHALLENGE TO THE PLAN IS BROUGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR TITLE VII. CORAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO FOR MANY YEARS, SAN FRANCISCO OPERATED ITS PUBLIC CONTRACTING PROGRAM BY GIVING PREFERENCES TO MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES IN VIOLATION OF PROPOSITION 209 AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. PLF SUED THE CITY AND PREVAILED IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ON THE PROPOSITION 209 ISSUES. HOWEVER, THE COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE CITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT IT INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MINORITY AND WOMEN CONTRACTORS IN VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE CITY ARGUES THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES PREFERENCES TO REMEDY PAST INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AND THAT IT DID NOT INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE. PLF ARGUES THAT THE CITY HAS NOT PRESENTED, AND CANNOT PRESENT, ANY FACTS DEMONSTRATING INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC CONTRACTING. THE CASE IS BACK IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. CONNERLY, ET AL. V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. THE CALIFORNIA CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH DRAWING CALIFORNIA'S CONGRESSIONAL, ASSEMBLY, SENATE, AND BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ELECTORAL DISTRICTS. THE 14 COMMISSIONERS ARE CHOSEN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE ' 8252. UNDER SECTION 8252, THE FIRST EIGHT COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY RANDOM SELECTION FROM A POOL OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS. THESE EIGHT APPOINTEES IN TURN SELECT THE FINAL SIX COMMISSION MEMBERS PURSUANT TO THE MANDATES OF SECTION 8252(G). UNFORTUNATELY, SECTION 8252(G) REQUIRES THAT RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SEX BE CONSIDERED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS WHICH VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SECTION 31 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (PROPOSITION 209). PROP 209 PROHIBITS THE USE OF RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SEX IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, AND PUBLIC CONTRACTING. REPRESENTING WARD CONNERLY, AND AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, PLF ATTORNEYS ARE BRINGING A FACIAL CHALLENGE TO SECTION 8252(G)'S REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE USE OF RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SEX IN SELECTING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A

YOUNG V. HEINEMAN, ET AL. LESLIE YOUNG OPERATES A BUSINESS CALLED ELIST.ME, WHICH POSTS INFORMATION BY HOMEOWNERS SEEKING TO SELL THEIR HOMES. THESE POSTS ARE THEN PUBLISHED ON WEBSITES OPERATED BY VARIOUS NEWS ORGANIZATIONS. YOUNG DOES NOT OFFER THE HOMEOWNERS REAL ESTATE SALES SERVICES, IS NOT PAID ON COMMISSION, AND IS NEVER CONTACTED BY POTENTIAL BUYERS OR THEIR AGENTS. SHE SIMPLY POSTS INFORMATION PROVIDED TO HER BY HOMESELLERS IN A DATABASE THAT FEEDS INFORMATION TO WEBSITES. NEVERTHELESS, SHE WAS SERVED WITH CEASE-AND-DESIST LETTERS BY THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, ON THE GROUNDS THAT SHE IS PRACTICING REAL ESTATE WITHOUT A LICENSE. THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER STATES THAT SHE IS "ADVERTISING FOR SALE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA," WHICH, THE STATE CLAIMS, QUALIFIES HER AS A "BROKER" UNDER THE REAL ESTATE LICENSE ACT, AND REQUIRES A LICENSE. REPRESENTING MS. YOUNG IN FEDERAL COURT, PLF ATTORNEYS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE SHE IS SOLELY ENGAGED IN THE PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION SHE IS NO MORE A REAL ESTATE AGENT THAN A NEWSPAPER IS WHEN IT PUBLISHES CLASSIFIED ADS. HER ACTIVITIES ARE FULLY PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH. THUS, IF HER ACTIVITIES QUALIFY AS THE PRACTICE OF REAL ESTATE UNDER NEBRASKA LAW, PLF ARGUES THAT THE STATUTE OPERATES AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN ADDITION, BECAUSE THE LICENSING RESTRICTION DOES NOT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, BUT SIMPLY PROTECTS ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES AGAINST LEGITIMATE COMPETITION, IT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL. LIBERTY COINS, LLC, ETA AL. V. DAVID GOODMAN, ET AL. LIBERTY COINS, LLC, BUYS AND SELLS PRECIOUS METALS. IT ADVERTISES WITH SIGNS, NEWSPAPER ADS, AND BUSINESS CARDS. THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFIED THE OWNER THAT HE WAS VIOLATING A STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES A LICENSE FOR PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS. THIS LAW IS APPLIED TO ANYONE ONLY IF THEY ADVERTISE THEIR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. LIBERTY COINS SUED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ALLEGING THAT THE LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH AND IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. THE TRIAL COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, FINDING THAT LICENSING ONLY COMMERCIAL SPEECH, AND NOT THE UNDERLYING ACTIVITY OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS, DID NOT MATERIALLY ADVANCE THE STATE'S SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS. PLF ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY REPRESENTED PETITIONER LIBERTY COINS, ARGUING THAT ADVERTISEMENT OF THE OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTIVITY OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS IS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND A LICENSING REQUIREMENT THAT RESTRICTS SUCH ADVERTISING IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY. CASTILLO V INGRAM, ET AL. AFTER SERVING FOR 29 YEARS AS A DETECTIVE WITH THE PALM SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, TROY CASTILLO RETIRED AND STARTED HIS OWN PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR SERVICE. HE OBTAINED LICENSES IN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, AND ARIZONA, AND SET UP SHOP IN HIS CALIFORNIA HOMETOWN. IN 2013, THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE ENACTED AB 306 WHICH PROHIBITS ANYONE FROM OPERATING AS A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR IN NEVADA WITHOUT MAINTAINING A PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE. HOWEVER, WHERE CASTILLO CHOOSES TO KEEP HIS OFFICE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS QUALIFICATIONS. AND YET, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WORKING IN NEVADA,THE LAW REQUIRED CASTILLO TO UNDERGO THE TIME-CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS OF OPENING A NEW OFFICE THERE, FURNISHING IT, AND PAYING RENT OR A MORTGAGE ON IT. THIS LAW PUTS CASTILLO AT A SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE COMPARED TO NEVADA RESIDENTS, WHO ONLY HAVE TO MAINTAIN ONE OFFICE, OR WORK OUT OF THEIR HOMES. WORSE, THE LAW ALSO VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT DEFINES "PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR" SO BROADLY THAT ANY PERSON EMPLOYED TO RESEARCH OR COMMUNICATE INFORMATION ABOUT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, "THE IDENTITY, HABITS, CONDUCT, BUSINESS, OCCUPATION, HONESTY, INTEGRITY, CREDIBILITY, KNOWLEDGE, TRUSTWORTHINESS, EFFICIENCY, LOYALTY, ACTIVITY, MOVEMENT, WHEREABOUTS, AFFILIATIONS, TRANSACTIONS, ACTS, REPUTATION OR CHARACTER OF ANY PERSON," QUALIFIES AS A PI. EVEN JOURNALISTS, GENEALOGISTS, AND TEACHERS WOULD REQUIRE A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSE IN NEVADA UNDER THIS DEFINITION. PLF ATTORNEYS BROUGHT SUIT ARGUING THAT AB 306 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO PROTECT IN-STATE BUSINESSES FROM OUT-OF-STATE COMPETITION, AND AN ILLEGAL "PRIOR RESTRAINT" ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THE STATE MUST HAVE SOME LEGITIMATE REASON (APART FROM PROTECTIONISM) FOR BURDENING CASTILLO'S RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. YET THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. INSTEAD, IT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO DRIVE UP THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR OUT-OF-STATE INVESTIGATORS. RECENTLY, DUE TO THIS LITIGATION, NEVADA REPEALED AB306! THE CRAFTED KEG, LLC V. LAWSON, ET AL CRAFT BREWERS TYPICALLY SELL THEIR BEER VIA 64-OUNCE GROWLERS, WHICH MANY PATRONS COLLECT AND THEN RE-USE TO PURCHASE BEER AT OTHER BREWERIES. IN FLORIDA, HOWEVER, A STATE PACKAGING LAW PROHIBITED THE SALE OR RE-FILLING OF THESE 64OZ GROWLERS BY ANYONE INVOLVED IN THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY ALTHOUGH THEY COULD REFILL 32OZ AND 128OZ CONTAINERS. PLF ATTORNEYS CHALLENGED THIS RESTRICTION AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR IT OTHER THAN PROTECTING THE MARKET FOR LARGE CORPORATE BEER MAKERS. AS A RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS REPEALED THIS LAW. WILSON-PERLMAN V NEVADA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RON AND DANELL PERLMAN ARE ENTREPRENEURS WHO OWN RENO-TAHOE LIMOUSINE COMPANY. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A LICENSE TO OPERATE SEVEN LIMOS IN NEVADA. THEY WANT TO EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS, BUT IN ORDER TO ADD MORE LIMOUSINES, THEY HAVE TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT FIRST. TWO YEARS AGO THE PERLMANS APPLIED FOR A LICENSE TO ADD EIGHT MORE VEHICLES TO THEIR FLEET, BUT UNDER NEVADA LAW, COMPETITORS CAN OBJECT AND ESSENTIALLY VETO THE LICENSE. ONE OF THE PERLMAN'S COMPETITORS PROTESTED THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH TRIGGERED AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AT WHICH THE PERLMANS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE "NECESSITY" OF THEIR BUSINESS AND THAT THEY WOULDN'T COMPETE WITH EXISTING BUSINESSES. AS A RESULT, THE STATE DENIED THEIR APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WOULD COMPETE WITH OTHER LIMOUSINE OPERATORS. STEVEN AND PATRICK SAXON ARE MOVERS IN THE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA AREA WHO WANT TO OPEN A BRANCH IN NEVADA, BUT THEY ALSO MUST FIRST NAVIGATE THE COMPETITOR'S VETO PROCESS. TOGETHER, THESE FOUR INDIVIDUALS ARE CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NEVADA'S ANTI-COMPETITIVE LICENSING PROCESS WHICH PERMITS THEIR COMPETITORS TO VETO THEIR RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING. YELLOW CAB CO. OF LOUISVILLE V. COOK & REEVES WHEELCHAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC. AFTER PLF'S SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO KENTUCKY'S COMPETITOR'S VETO LAW APPLYING TO MOVERS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, THE STATE DECIDED TO APPLY THE RULING TO OTHER TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES. YELLOW CAB SUED TO RESTORE THE COMPETITOR'S VETO TO THE TAXI INDUSTRY AND PLF IS ARGUING THAT THE STATE ACTED BOTH CONSTITUTIONALLY AND RESPONSIBLY. MCLEAN V CITY OF ALEXANDRIA SCOTT MCLEAN WANTED TO SELL HIS TRUCK. HE WANTED TO LEAVE A FOR-SALE SIGN IN IT WHEN HE PARKED IT ON PUBLIC STREETS IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINA, BUT A CITY ORDINANCE SUBJECTED HIM TO FINES AND TOWING IF HE DID SO. THE LAW DOESN'T BAN OTHER KINDS OF SIGNS - "PROUD PARENT OF HONOR ROLL STUDENT," "VOTE FOR PEDRO," "DRINK COKE," OR "CENTURY 21" SIGNS ARE ALL ALLOWED. THE CITY ORDINANCE SINGLED OUT ONE TYPE OF SPEECH AND BANNED IT. REPRESENTING HIM IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT, PLF ATTORNEYS ARGUED THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT PROHIBITED SPEECH BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THE MESSAGE. AS A RESULT, THE CITY HAS REPEALED ITS ORDINANCE

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A

FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENT FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ENTHUSIASTS IN CHALLENGING THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE'S ILLEGAL DECISION TO BAR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES FROM HUNDREDS OF MILES OF ROADS AND TRAILS IN THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY OPEN TO OFF-ROAD ENTHUSIASTS. THE SERVICE'S ACTION CAME THROUGH ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2005 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE FOR THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST. PLF ARGUES THE SERVICE VIOLATED THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT BY FAILING TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE HUMAN IMPACTS OF PROHIBITING ACCESS TO MORE THAN 800 MILES OF FORMERLY ACCESSIBLE TRAILS, FAILING TO CONDUCT A SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE ROUTES AT ISSUE, AND IMPROPERLY PREJUDICING OFF-ROAD RECREATION IN DEVELOPING THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE REGULATORY DECISION. FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS AS WELL AS OTHER RECREATION GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATED THROUGHOUT THE NEPA PROCESS, AND ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS VOLUNTEERED MUCH TIME FILING THE GROUPS' ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND TURNED TO PLF BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO CARRY FORWARD THE LITIGATION ON THEIR OWN. AS THESE GROUPS CONSIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO ENJOY OFF-ROAD RECREATION AND THE OUTDOORS EXPERIENCE, THEY FEAR THE FOREST SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THEIR ACCESS TO THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST. THE CASE IS MOVING FORWARD IN THE TRIAL COURT. BAY AREA CITIZENS V. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS AND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLF ATTORNEYS REPRESENT BAY AREA CITIZENS, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS, IN CHALLENGING PLAN BAY AREA, A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT WOULD SQUEEZE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO CROWDED, HIGH-DENSITY ZONES. PLAN BAY AREA AIMS TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FOR THE REGION, THROUGH "STACK AND PACK" DEVELOPMENT, MANDATING THAT MOST FUTURE HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT BE CRAMMED INTO ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE REGION'S SURFACE AREA. THE PLAN VIOLATES THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), BECAUSE THE DRAFTING AGENCIES FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS. THEY STUDIOUSLY IGNORED DATA THAT SHOWS HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS AREN'T NEEDED IN ORDER TO MEET THE REGION'S TARGETS FOR GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION. ALSO IN VIOLATION OF CEQA, THE AGENCIES REFUSED TO CONSIDER CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO THEIR DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT AND PEOPLE'S LIFESTYLES. THE CASE IS ON APPEAL. DUARTE NURSERY V. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD PLF SUED THE CORPS OVER ITS ISSUANCE OF A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO THE OWNER OF A WHEAT FARM IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE CORPS SAID THE FARMER WAS FARMING IN PROTECTED WETLANDS - A CONTENTION THE FARMER DISPUTES BUT HAS BEEN GIVEN NO WAY TO GO TO COURT TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER. (INSTEAD HE MUST APPLY FOR AN EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING PERMIT THAT HE DOESN'T THINK HE NEEDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.) PLF IS ARGUING THAT AFTER A LANDOWNER IS ORDERED TO STOP FARMING, HE IS ENTITLED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO A HEARING BEFORE A NEUTRAL JUDGE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE ARE ACTUALLY ANY PROTECTED WETLANDS AT STAKE. AFTER THE COURT REFUSED TO THROW OUT DUARTE'S DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT, THE CORPS TURNED AROUND AND COUNTERSUED FOR THE SUPPOSED CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS. IN RESPONSE PLF FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT ALLEGING A RETALIATORY ACTION BY THE CORPS WE ALLEGE THAT THE CORPS WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION IF DUARTE NURSERY AND ITS OFFICERS HAD NOT EXERCISED THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY SUING OVER THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, AND BY SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CORPS' ACTIONS IN PRINT, RADIO, AND TELEVISION INTERVIEWS.

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A

HAWKES CO. V. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS THROUGH A "JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION," THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNATED PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HAWKES CO., INC., PIERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, AND LPF PROPERTIES, IN MINNESOTA, AS "WETLANDS" OVER WHICH THE CORPS HAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY. HAWKES DISPUTED THIS FINDING AND SOUGHT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS. THE THRESHOLD ISSUE IS WHETHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BRING A COURT CHALLENGE TO SUCH A REGULATORY FINDING. PLF REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON APPEAL, AND ARGUED THAT JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS ("WETLANDS" DESIGNATIONS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT) ARE FINAL AGENCY ACTIONS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN ATTEMPTING TO HOLD CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATORS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE COURTS FOR THEIR DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER PROPERTY IS WETLANDS OR NOT, AND WHERE THEY HAVE REGULATORY POWER, THIS CASE FOLLOWS UP ON OUR VICTORY IN SACKETT V. EPA. IN THAT LANDMARK 2012 DECISION, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MAY APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THE JUDICIARY FROM A FEDERAL WETLANDS "COMPLIANCE ORDER." RECENTLY, THE 8TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH PLF AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO SEEK SUPREME COURT REVIEW. UNIVERSAL WELDING, INC,. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL WELDING, A SMALL FAMILY-RUN-AND-OWNED STEEL FABRICATION BUSINESS BASED IN NORTH POLE, ALASKA. THE ACTION, AGAINST THE US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS, CHALLENGES THAT AGENCY'S ASSERTION OF CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION OVER 14 ACRES OF WHAT THE CORPS HAS DEEMED "LOW-QUALITY" WETLANDS THAT LIE ON UNIVERSAL WELDING'S PROPERTY. PLF'S LAWSUIT CONTENDS THAT THESE PUTATIVE WETLANDS ARE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE CORPS TO REGULATE BECAUSE THEY ARE ADJACENT TO OTHER JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM REGULATION UNDER THE CORPS' OWN REGULATIONS. THE CASE RELIES ON A PRIOR PLF VICTORY FROM THE SAME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GREAT NORTHWEST, INC. V. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THAT CASE HELD THAT PROPERTY THAT IS SEPARATED FROM A JURISDICTIONAL WATER BY TWO MAN-MADE BARRIERS, WITH WETLANDS IN BETWEEN EACH BARRIER, IS NON-JURISDICTIONAL. IN UNIVERSAL WELDING'S CASE, THE CORPS CONTENDS THAT GREAT NORTHWEST IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE UNIVERSAL WELDING'S PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM OTHER WETLANDS BY ONLY ONE MAN-MADE BARRIER (A COUNTY ROAD). PLF'S LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT THIS IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. SISSEL V. U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION LAUNCHED AN AMENDED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE FEDERAL AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (OBAMACARE). THE ACA IMPOSES A CHARGE ON AMERICANS WHO FAIL TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE (A CHARGE THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RECENTLY CHARACTERIZED AS A FEDERAL TAX). PLF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THIS PURPORTED TAX IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE RATHER THAN THE HOUSE, AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION'S ORIGINATION CLAUSE FOR NEW REVENUE-RAISING BILLS (ARTICLE I, SECTION 7). THE ORIGINATION CLAUSE ARGUMENT IS MADE IN AN AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED IN PLF'S ONGOING LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ACA, SISSEL V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES. PLF'S LAWSUIT WAS ON HOLD WHILE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE CHALLENGE TO THE ACA FROM THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS (NFIB) AND 26 STATES, IN NFIB V. SEBELIUS. AS INITIALLY FILED, PLF'S SISSEL LAWSUIT TARGETED THE ACA'S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE AS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S COMMERCE CLAUSE (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8). THE SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH THIS POSITION, IN THE NFIB RULING, BUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, JOINED BY FOUR JUSTICES, CHARACTERIZED THE ACA'S CHARGE AS A FEDERAL "TAX," BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A PAYMENT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM PEOPLE WHO DECIDE NOT TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT HOLDING PROMPTED PLF'S NEW CAUSE OF ACTION. IF THE CHARGE FOR NOT BUYING INSURANCE IS SEEN AS A FEDERAL TAX, THEN A NEW QUESTION MUST BE ASKED. WHEN LAWMAKERS PASSED THE ACA, WITH ALL OF ITS TAXES, DID THEY FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION'S "ORIGINATION CLAUSE" PROCEDURES FOR REVENUE INCREASES? THE SUPREME COURT WASN'T ASKED AND DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS QUESTION IN THE NFIB CASE BUT DID ALLUDE TO IT. THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION WAS OBEYED HAS NOW WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH THE DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE THE COURT ISSUED AN OPINION UNDERCUTTING THE ORIGINATION CLAUSE. PLF IS PREPARING A PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR IT TO HEAR THIS MOST IMPORTANT CASE. PARTIAL LISTING OF CASES WHERE PLF DEDICATED RESOURCES DURING 2014 THROUGH AMICUS BRIEFS: COMMON SENSE ALLIANCE V. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD BEESON V. CITY OF PALMER, ALASKA KRAMER V. CITY OF LAKE OSEWEGO CITY OF KIRKLAND V. POTALA VILLAGE KIRKLAND, LLC PORRETTO V. TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER UNITED STATES V. HAGE CITY OF PERRIS V. STAMPER HORNE V. U.S. DEPT AGRICULTURE LBLHA, LLC V. TOWN OF LONG BEACH, INDIANA KURTZ V. VERIZON NEW YORK LOST TREE VILLAGE CORP. V. UNITED STATES GRIEPENBURG V. TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN, ET AL. OCEAN PALM GOLF CLUB PARTNERSHIP V. CITY OF FLAGLER BEACH CENTURY EXPLORATION NEW ORLEANS, LLC, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ABIGAIL FISHER V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MIDWEST FENCE CORP. V. UNITED STATES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION EEOC V. FREEMAN MARGERUM V. CITY OF BUFFALO DUNNET BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. HANNIG ROTHE DEVELOPMENT, INC., V. DEPT OF DEFENSE AND SMALL BUSINESS TEXAS DEPT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS V. INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INC. EEOC V. CATASTROPHE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS V. ALABAMA LARUE V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS V WASHINGTON MAGEE V. BOYD RICHARDSON V STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HART V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FAASSE V SCOTT MCCALL V. SCOTT SANCHEZ V. VALENCIA HOLDING CO., LLC CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES, LLC VS. ISKANIAN WEBB V. SPECIAL ELECTRIC CO., INC. FRIEDRICHS V. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION FOWLER V. CARMAX GENIE INDUSTRIES V. RICKY MATAK, ET AL. SPOKEO V. ROBINS RAMOS V. BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA KESNER V. SUPERIOR COURT (PNEUMO ABEX LLC) HAVER V. BNSF RAILWAY CO. PLAINS EXPLORATIONS & PRODUCTIONS CO. V. TORCH ENERGY ADVISORS, INC. IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION (DUMMIT V. A.W. CHESTERTON AND CRANE CO.) ATALESE V. UNITED STATES LEGAL SERVICES GROUP, L.P. LIMONES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LEE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION V. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SISKIYOU COUNTY FARM BUREAU V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME BIRON FAMILY LIVING TRUST V. CITY OF REDDING DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY V. SALAZAR (JEWELL) ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION V., COREY GALLAGHER & HENRY V. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STURGEON V. MASSICA UNITED STATES V. OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO LIGHT V. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES EPA CONSERVATION CONGRESS V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ET AL. NORTH DAKOTA V. HEYDINGER CHRISTIE V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ET AL. COONS V. LEW CHEATHAM V. GORDON ROSEBROCK V. MATHIS BIGGS V. BREWER WEST VIRGINIA V. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES YATES V. UNITED STATES

FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11

THE TAX PREPARER AND PLF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROVIDE THE FORM 990 TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. ALONG WITH PROVIDING EACH TRUSTEE A COPY OF THE FORM 990, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE ANY CONCERNS AND/OR ASK QUESTIONS PRIOR TO THE FILING DATE. A DEADLINE IS GIVEN TO THE TRUSTEES TO INSURE TIMELY FILING OF THE TAX RETURN.

FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C

EACH TIME A NEW CASE COMES UP, PLF CHECKS FOR CONFLICTS. EACH DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD, IF SOMEONE HAS A CONFLICT, THE BOARD MEMBER WILL ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE AND/OR DISCUSSION. ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THE TRUSTEES REVIEW THE POLICY PROVIDING WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT.

FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD MEETS ANNUALLY AND USES COMPARABILITY DATA PROVIDED BY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO DETERMINE THAT THE COMPENSATION DOES NOT EXCEED THE LEVEL OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED.

FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19

COPIES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ORGANIZATIONS WEBSITE OR UPON REQUEST.

FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 9:

SFAS NO.247 ADJUSTMENT FOR SPLIT INTEREST AGREEMENTS 30,819.

FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C:

NO CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2014

Software ID:
Software Version: