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.

This is a GREAT victory!

Source: Karen Budd Falen Esq.