Land consultant launches on Henderson, accuses city of trying to gag him



Mike Ford, who was trying to help broker the land deal in Henderson that went sour, has issued a blistering broadside against the city in the wake of its settlement with developer Chris Milam.

Ford had been portrayed by the city and its "newspaper" handmaidens as a double-dealer in the land deal, which Henderson settled with Milam by doing the Old West thing: Get out of town by sundown or else.

But, says Ford, the city is trying to muzzle him after its lawsuit "disparaged me, savagely." Ford, in a statement I have obtained, said Henderson is "demanding that I give up my First Amendment Right and constitutional guarantees to speak out and voice my opinion, or criticize the government, regarding the City's misconduct and actions in this case, or anything else."

(I have asked for a comment from the city.)

Ford's full statement is below, along with follow-up comments in which he says his partner, former national BLM boss Bob Abbey, who referred to the city officials as "f---ing idiots," also is being unfairly maligned. He also criticizes City Attorney Josh Reid as being "inexperienced," and wonders about the motivations of the city and its outside counsel, Bailey-Kennedy.

Great reading:

The City of Henderson and Mr. Milam made their deal without my involvement.

When we received the draft Settlement Agreement, late on Tuesday, we asked

for a handful of minor clarifications and changes which in no way affected

the Agreement between Milam and the City.

Unfortunately, the City summarily rejected those suggestions without any

discussion, once again showing their inability to act in good faith.

I am merely asking for the opportunity to speak the "truth" related to my

actions associated with the BLM land sale and I am not interested in making

any comments or statements about anything else that may have occurred.

Now, after the City of Henderson has disparaged me, savagely, they are

demanding that I give up my First Amendment Right and constitutional

guarantees to speak out and voice my opinion, or criticize the government,

regarding the City's misconduct and actions in this case, or anything else.

That the City of Henderson (the Government) would even ask for such a

provision is personally offensive. Frankly, it is a travesty that it would

elect to spend taxpayer money on litigation rather than withdraw such a

demand.  I would hope this gives pause to the voters of Henderson -- and the

public in general.

And the follow-up:


I assure you we personally welcome the Department of Interior IG investigation so they can make an independent finding (sooner rather then later) in an effort to further validate all that we know to be true.

Specifically, there was no wrongdoing committed on anyone's part (especially Bob Abbey) and Bob was not directly or indirectly involved in the transaction at any level, he does not stand to benefit, he has not accepted any money (or intends to accept any) for work we (Robcyn, LLC) accomplished in support of this transaction. The sale was conducted in complete compliance with all appropriate BLM laws, regulations, and rules and the land was sold as fair market value as determined by the Department of Interior's Office of Valuation Services.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the sale was completed with the full and complete support of The City of Henderson. The BLM land sale, and my actions, were never an issue until the City entered into its dispute with Mr. Milan regarding the Master Project Agreement (MPA). In spite of the terrible allegations that have been made, including fraud on my part, this case has always been about the dispute regarding the MPA and that is not an issue that involves BLM, or me. Look to the inexperienced City Attorney and his outside Counsel for the true issue.
Sadly, I have been forced to spend significant moeny to defend myself against these baseless accusations which "informed" people at the City of Henderson know to be untrue.
Henderson's response:
The language in the city's settlement, and entered into by the other parties, is relatively standard mutual non-disparagement language and nothing at all that would prevent Mr. Ford from exercising his Constitutional rights. Mr. Ford had the same opportunity to settle as the rest of the parties and it was his choice not to do so. We are very confident in the merits of our case against Mr. Ford and are certainly comfortable in moving forward with the litigation.