MEMO FROM KAREN BUDD FALEN

To: Friends of Frank Robbins and Interested Parties

From: Karen Budd Falen

Date: January 21, 2004

Re: We WON; The Court rules there is no qualified immunity for the BLM employees - Robbins v. Wilkie et al., 98-CV-201B (Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Federal District Court of Wyoming, January 20, 2004).

FRANK ROBBINS WILL GET HIS TRIAL BY JURY!! On January 20, 2004, Wyoming Federal District Judge, Clarence Brimmer ruled that the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") employees individually sued by Frank Robbins for violating his constitutional rights, unlawful retaliation, and attempted extortion by the wrongful use of fear or under color of official right were not protected by the qualified immunity of their BLM employment and that the BLM employees would have to stand trial, by jury. Robbins’ suit named several current and past BLM employees under the Racketeering, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and "Bivens." According to Robbins, the named employees used the power of their federal employment to attempt to acquire an easement across Robbins’ private property. Because he refused their demand, the employees set out to destroy him to accomplish their goals.

The last major hurtle for Frank Robbins before getting before a jury was the BLM employees’ motion for summary judgment, based upon qualified immunity. The Defendants claimed that because they acted while they were employed by the BLM, they were protected from individual liability. However, the Court agreed with Frank Robbins and rejected that blanket immunity argument. According to the Court, "qualified immunity protects federal officials from individual liability unless the officials violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." Although the Court noted that Mr. Robbins had a "heavy burden" in proving his claims, the Court agreed that Mr. Robbins presented factual evidence that reasonable BLM employees would have known that they were violating Mr. Robbins’ rights with their actions. The Court cited to the 248 exhibits attached to Mr. Robbins brief and stated that "Plaintiff [Mr. Robbins] provides a significant amount of evidence which would lead a jury to conclude that Defendants did intend and agreed to extort and punish Plaintiff." In its footnote, the Court went on that "Plaintiff has submitted evidence of Defendants’ alleged motive and intent, threats, lies, trespass, disparate treatment and harassment in the form of various depositions, including a deposition of a former BLM employee Ed Parodi, various letters, criminal trial transcripts and trespass notices." Although each BLM employee affirmatively denied that he or she "‘did not conspire or agree with anyone at any time for any purpose with regards to Plaintiff, particularly to commit any alleged predicate acts of extortion or retaliation,’" the Court "will not solely rely upon the statements of the individual employees. This case will go to a jury.

Should you have any questions, please contact me. Feel free to distribute this information widely. We will publish the trial date when it is assigned. This is a GREAT victory!