Hypothetical Legal Question

[Fish Felon]

What if,

A special interests group X sued a government agency that has law making authority on the grounds they overstepped their bounds on a recent decision. The agency won and the case was dismissed by laying down a clear directive for their operational procedures they have always used as their defense....

...A year later that same governmental agency is coincidentally faced with another decision just like the one in the court case. Instead of making the decision using the same operational procedures they literally just legally testified to using, they instead do the exact opposite at the urging of special interest group Y whom they are cozy with.



Because of the tunnel vision for only their concerns by both special interest groups X & Y as well as being miles apart politically no one notices this glaring discrepancy but you. You feel what the government agency did was extremely wrong and are outraged by their actions.


You know that if you anonymously alert special interest group X they will go berzerk and without a doubt sue the government agency and easily win. The problem is you don't care for group X and were happy with the court decision so you don't want to help them even though you know they'll hold the agency accountable for their actions which is your ultimate goal. This option would require very little effort on your part and accomplish your goal but there will most likely be unforseen positives gained by group X creating possible unforseen consequences you might not like.

Even though you are more aligned politically with group Y you still can't stand them. It disgusts you the government agency pandered to them and the resulting decision really chaps your azz. You are willing to file a lawsuit to see it overturned and teach the agency a lesson but that would mean negative personal exposure for yourself not to mention a shyteload of time, effort and possible expenses.

Another option would be to meet with the agency and discuss your displeasure with them and their reckless decision making and putrid hypocrisy. You explain what you have on them and tell them the two options you're contemplating and then inform them of a third option; they overturn their decision and upset special interest group Y which they don't want to do. This option saves you from many of the other downsides but now you've exposed yourself and essentially threatened a government agency that has known and probable unknown power over you.


What would you do?

[Quack]

Get that teal season!

[maplelakeduckslayer]

I like turtles

[cstemig]

You might contact your elected officials and express your concerns to them. Not just one of them, but several (i.e. Congressmen, Senators, Governor, etc.) They may be able to start an inquiry from their office and leave your name out of it. It may allow them to look good to the rest of the voters and keep you safe.

Then there is always the media. Sig them on a good story and let nature take it's course.

Directly taking on a government agency by yourself is not always the best solution. You may need witnesses and protection.

[StuStiltman]

I'd use simple math to solve my dilemma. X/y added to the sum of x*z= (z being trailer stickers * black hoodies squared) gives me a number that will help solve this problem. Obviously this number must be divided by the total number of barrel stickers divided by the number of white rimmed sunglasses. Or something. ( I've never seen those but I'll take the guys on here's word that the exist). So that final number I'm left with obviously needs to be sent thru the net around the world then right into the back if Mr bigs limo. Its almost to easy. And I'm kinda drunk.

[MNREAPER]

E=MC(the government always wins)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[h2ofwlr]

I like Bees and Monarchs.

[Trigger]

I like Bees and Monarchs.

No. You like guys.

[Fish Felon]

I like Bees and Monarchs.

No. You like guys.

I hear he's got a huge crush on a guy named Brad......bald guy with glasses, works over in Hopkins, looks up stuff other similar outfits did and takes credit for it.

[lanyard]

JFC.

When you figure out that the MWA doesn't have the political clout to shut down a teal season as an organization you'll be the first step closer.

2 nd step is to connect which people that oppose the teal season also were active in lobbying and passing the Legacy Amendment.

You want a teal season? Figure out how to put $100 million in the "bank" to assist the DNR's mission.

Don't be surprised if the people that were influential in the Legacy Amendment have, or have had, some role in MWA. But don't confuse the two, you're baiting a red herring.