FAWNSKIN, Calif. — Biologist Robin Eliason has been a model employee of the U.S. Forest Service since 1989, winning a certificate of merit every year and establishing a reputation as the government's expert on bald eagles in the San Bernardino National Forest.
But now Eliason, her husband, Scott, a Forest Service botanist, and their boss, San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor Gene Zimmerman, have had to hire their own attorney to defend them in a lawsuit accusing them of racketeering.
San Diego businessman Irving Okovita, who filed the suit, alleges that the Eliasons, Zimmerman and Sandy Steers, a local environmental activist, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to block the Marina Point development, a luxury condominium project Okovita wants to develop with an Arizona company in this hamlet on the north shore of Big Bear Lake.
Okovita sued under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a statute originally passed in 1970 to strengthen the government's arsenal against mobsters and drug lords. As time has passed, the law has been used against a variety of individuals and groups. Legal experts, however, said they believed this was the first time the law had been targeted at Forest Service employees.
The three Forest Service employees and Steers said the charges against them are patently false. The government workers maintain that they were acting in their official capacity as Forest Service employees and have done nothing wrong. Steers said Okovita's suit was brought partly "to intimidate other activists from speaking out. That won't work," she said.
But more than a month after Okovita filed his suit, the U.S. Department of Justice, which routinely represents federal employees accused of wrongdoing, has not moved to defend the three Forest Service employees, even though an attorney from the Forest Service's parent agency, the Department of Agriculture, recommended to Justice that it provide lawyers for the employees, according to sources close to the case.
Okovita's project came to a halt last May when a federal judge in Riverside issued a preliminary injunction saying that two activist groups, Friends of Fawnskin and the Center for Biological Diversity, had demonstrated that the development had "the potential to both harass and harm the bald eagle," which is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs have shown that "a violation of the Endangered Species Act is at least likely in the future," U.S. District Judge Robert Timlin said in a written ruling.
