PROJC01779 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comment: At the June 2, 1997 scheduling conference for case # 97-CV- 526, attorney Linda Bassi, representing the State, attorney Robert D. Clark, rep- resenting NRCS and FSA, and Flint B. Ogle, representing OMID and MMLE, ad- vised Magistrate Judge O. Edward Schlatter that FSA had issued the entire $400,000 grant, although only a third of the project had been rehabilitated, and while legal action was pending. Issuing this grant before project completion violates Jeff Burwell's October 24, 1996 statement to Flint Ogle and Duane Johnson's April 19, 1996 statement to Charles Campbell that funds would not be issued until the entire lateral had been rehabilitated. One must think that after Jeff Burwell had notified Flint Ogle in writing that funds would not be issued until the project was completed, it becomes Mr. Ogle's responsibility to not allow issuance of the grant in violation of this notice. Mr. Ogle should have been fully aware of the fact that premature issuance of the grant to an ineligible participant is at the center of the legal action being scheduled at the time he announced to Judge Schlatter that the grant had been issued. This appears to be perjury by an officer of the court. Evidence shows that Flint Ogle and Linda Bassi had jointly reviewed the loan contract. Both were advised by letter before the grant was issued that the grant could not be issued until all 21,500 feet of MML was rehabilitated, Ms. Bassi confirmed to Judge Schlatter that NRCS had issued the grant to CWCB (not OMID). Is this confirmation to a Judge that the grant had been issued con- sidered aiding and abetting? At this scheduling conference plaintiffs provided Linda Bassi, CWCB at- torney discovery documents. She advised plaintiffs that the documents OMID had provided plaintiffs included all associated CWeB discovery documents. After reviewing documents provided, it is clear that Ms Bassi has not provided all CWCB documents in file for the MML project. Is this act of omission a violation of the standards of legal ethics expected of this lawyer? September 24th the United States District Court certified three questions of law to the Colorado Supreme Court. These questions ask if OMID is a government under Amendment 1; if OMID can form a water activity enterprise under the wa- ter activity enterprise statutes; and if so, does the enterprise have to comply with Amendment 1. Written briefs have been completed and oral arguments were made June ~ 1998. ( Salinity Control Contract (92-233) 65-8B05-4-3207 Congress has authorized two types of salinity control programs for the Grand Valley segment of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The more well known pro- gram is the lining of major irrigation canals by the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The other is the Colorado River Salinity Control (CRSC) program car- ried out by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) . 11 -~/