# Public land lawyers billed Utah for luxury flights, food, and hotel rooms



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

All I can say is I'm sure glad it's going to the lawyers instead of our school children! Spending money on frivolous lawsuits and lost causes are much better investments! Thanks Utah republicans, you did your citizens another solid. Can I say vote them out again?

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=40538405&ni...lawyers-billed-utah-for-luxury-flights-hotels


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Take it easy 1-I. No news here......upgraded flights, nice hotels, and good meals are business status quo. Lawyers do it, consultants do it, school administrators do it, BLM employees do it, Republicans do it, and Democrats do it. When I travel for business, I do it too. It's part of why some folks take the time to become a 'professional'. 

There might be a million reasons to be upset over current land issues and related expenditures but this is not one of them. Pick your points more carefully and you won't look like such a hack. You remind me of Sean Hannity sometimes. Credibility zero.-----SS


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Springville, I have to disagree. I think there is a story, simply because the lawyers didn't follow the agreed upon contract. Overall, I bet the financial impact is negligible. 

The prices they are mentioning in the article aren't really that unusual from a professionals perspective. While traveling for business, I have spent much more on meals than I would if it had been out of my own pocket. The problem with the term "reasonable expenses" is that it is so subjective. If you and your colleagues go out for $300 a plate meals on the client all the time, then a $100 steak is "reasonable" and slumming it. 

Overall, I think it is just another PR hit for the public lands transfer movement. I'd be willing to bet the total of the of these "excessive charges" don't make up much of the close to $1m that they have spent to try to convince us a public lands transfer is in our best interest.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

SS, I'll just agree to disagree. The point of my rant is that this is a worthless waste that will end up being useless. Not one dime being spent is of use to Utah or its citizens. If the state goes to court it will be handed it's ass. I would rather see money staying in our state benefitting our citizens than catering to lawyers doing is no good and for our republican reps to play politics and yes, I will continue saying republican reps, because this is absolutely a party line issue.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Springville Shooter said:


> Take it easy 1-I. No news here......upgraded flights, nice hotels, and good meals are business status quo. Lawyers do it, consultants do it, school administrators do it, BLM employees do it, Republicans do it, and Democrats do it. When I travel for business, I do it too. It's part of why some folks take the time to become a 'professional'.


In my line of work, we do it too. However, we adhere to our fee schedule specified in the project contract. I expect lawyers working for the state to do the same.

Honestly, I'm much more angry that this lawsuit is happening at all than I am about a few lawyers taking advantage of it.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Ah gentlemen we are venturing into that left field again. Lets find something new and exciting to talk about, like golly i dont know, wait how about hunting or fishing or your 
dog , bla bla bla


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

He started it!!! LoL, when are we going to learn?-------SS


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

So SS, did you read the news article #1Deer 1-I linked? 

A contract is a contract doesn't matter if you're a land lawyer or a shoe salesman. If there's line-item parts of the contract that have not-to-exceed $ you stay under that number or ask for a change order. 

I am a consultant and work on the road. I fly first class but if the contract says coach, I bill coach, but the company reimburses me for First Class. If I'm setting up a job I may have 4 or 5 check-in boxes or bags, so then First Class might be cheaper than coach. If so, I give the client the details know on my invoice.

I right contracts and it's ridiculous to think someone doesn't have to follow a contract. You can take exception but you have to do that before you go beyond the limits of the contract.

Like the land-grabber lawyers I expect a certain level of comfort on a job. If that level is over and above the contract my employer has to deal with it. Some may take my expenses and throw them in the invoice, knowing it's way over the limit, just to see if the client will roll and pay for it. Maybe that's what they're doing. After all, those land-stealing lawyers have a big budget and they're pretty tight with those people, that you elect time after time, that sign the checks.

This is not my favorite thread.

.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

This weekend I'll probably go scouting for deer on the public lands these lawyers are being paid by our politicians to steal from us. I get there's a fine line, but this isn't to fine of a line for me. What's wrong with calling out the political party trying to trash the very thing that makes my passions and memories so possible the way they exist today.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Are we bitter much Goob? 

You make a lot of assumptions. I read the article on KSL before I even saw the post on here. My point was not a judgement of right or wrong or a lesson on contract etiquette, it was that we shouldn't get caught up in the details that detract from real issues. Talking heads on tv, like the one that I mentioned in my post, are famous for detracting from the meat of the issues.

Please reference the thread by Hawkeye if you want a good example of a productive post that has the substance to shape opinion. 

I guess I'd better stop there as I've probably already overstepped my bounds. You know what they say. Don't nip at the heels of the big dog. ------SS


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> . What's wrong with calling out the political party trying to trash the very thing that makes my passions and memories so possible the way they exist today.


Because generalizations are always completely wrong. If you want to call out specific individuals that's one thing but calling out someone because of a political party is just plain stupid. Are you ok with people calling you a baby killer because democrats support abortion? I think you get my point now.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Because generalizations are always completely wrong. If you want to call out specific individuals that's one thing but calling out someone because of a political party is just plain stupid. Are you ok with people calling you a baby killer because democrats support abortion? I think you get my point now.


I don't think I called out their constituents, I called out the Represenatives on that side of the isle. I wasn't inferring that every republican is a part of it, but their republican representative sure is. I've never voted for democrat before, I will this year. It's not a generalization as far as the parties go, look at the votes on every public land issue and it's obvious to see what party supports them and what one wants to sell them. It's not a generalization when it's a rigid line between the two parties.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I don't think I called out their constituents, I called out the Represenatives on that side of the isle. I wasn't inferring that every republican is a part of it, but their republican representative sure is. I've never voted for democrat before, I will this year. It's not a generalization as far as the parties go, look at the votes on every public land issue and it's obvious to see what party supports them and what one wants to sell them. It's not a generalization when it's a rigid line between the two parties.


It is literally part of the R party platform. It does have the potential to directly affect our future ability to utilize public lands to hunt and fish

Taken from the party platform:

"Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries - those that respect and protect private property rights - also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, _*Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government's enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership.*_ Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they own."

No thank you!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

So, is it better then to have a completely controlled democrat government? if so, I would submit that you will then give up every right you currently have. All one has to do is look at what government ownership has done for countries that embraced communism.

That is where the democrat platform is. it happened back in the late 1930's.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

High Desert Elk said:


> So, is it better then to have a completely controlled democrat government? if so, I would submit that you will then give up every right you currently have. All one has to do is look at what government ownership has done for countries that embraced communism.
> 
> That is where the democrat platform is. it happened back in the late 1930's.


That isn't what I'm supporting. I have plenty of issues with the D platform, but most of them aren't outdoor related and thus aren't within the scope of this conversation. Most of them are not also a direct affront to one of my favorite pastimes.

In Utah specifically, which was the topic of the article, ideas supported on the right about public land transfer, or conservation tend to face little real opposition. I think it would be healthy to have voices from both sides of the aisle providing input about what is truly best for Utah and the public land heritage that is one of the things that makes the state great. My vote is my most powerful tool.

I simply think that when it comes to preserving public land, the R's are on the wrong side of the issue. If we want to throw out words like communism, I definitely support the socialist or communist approach to continued preservation of publicly accessible lands. Buzzwords are fun.

Also, I was a registered R until last year. Now I'm registered as "unaffiliated." This issue has the ability to fundamentally change much of what I spend my free time doing. Until I see a reasonable approach to the public land issues, as well as a willingness to curtail corruption and lack of accountability with state funds(the focus of the article), I have little reason to support the status quo in Utah.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> So, is it better then to have a completely controlled democrat government? if so, I would submit that you will then give up every right you currently have. All one has to do is look at what government ownership has done for countries that embraced communism.
> 
> That is where the democrat platform is. it happened back in the late 1930's.


Don't want that at all. Utah has way too many representatives that have held their positions wayyy too long. They are never in any danger of being voted out either, simply because they are a republican and they go to church on Sunday's. I'm sure that's not what some want to hear but it's the truth in this state. I absolutely want more democrats in our state legislature it is vital to change and keep both sides in line. Allowing one party to rule with an iron fist anywhere is niave. As Kwalk said, there is no reason to continue the status quo that is damaging my interests, attacking my hobbies, and wasting my money. It's time for Utah to open up and take a breath of fresh air. It's not that the rest of the world is crazy and we in this state are so brilliant. It's that we have a certain ideology which allows for strange things to happen here. I don't need that ideology telling me what's right and what's wrong through the channel of laws and legislatures I can decide what's right and wrong for myself. I may have just crossed that ever so vague line here and if this rant needs to be deleted I understand why. I'm just asking people to open there eyes and realize these conservative Represenatives in this state have laid down laws and policies and used your money on what fits their ideology, and it's no different or less concerning than what liberal ideology does in a place like California. Conservatives are only anti-government when it goes against their ideology.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Gentlemen 

I come from a state that has a lot of democrats in state government offices. Trust me, you don't want that. The wish of more democrats is like seeing greener grass on the other side of the fence. I do agree, however, that politicians hold their offices far too long, and contrary to the comment of because they go to church on Sunday, we actually need more who do observe Sunday for what it is. Like it or not, the founders held deep feelings and thoughts on that one (see the 1st Amendment).

Politicians as long as they are allowed to be the elite and new noble class will always misuse tax monies. Government is lousy at running business. Socialism and communism are not buzz words but failed economic schools of thought that strip away freedoms that can only be observed with what we currently have in place, for now. With those economic systems in place and the forms of government that follow, your outdoor hobbies will be gone as you know it.

I am not a proponent of private or state ownership of lands. Of course the best course of action is federal protection, but at the expense of what? I agree, there is no difference in todays Democrat or Republican (aka RINO).


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

:deadhorse::kev::kev: pretty well sums it up.


----------

