"Basically we've got a lawsuit where the people who stand to lose the most aren't allowed to appear," said Richard Marcantonio, supervising attorney for Marin Legal Aid, which is representing 16 Johnson workers and their children.

Marcantonio claimed that the County Counsel's office originally agreed to let workers to appear in the lawsuit as a party. Then the county changed its mind, he said.

The county has temporarily postponed a request for a preliminary injunction against the company while environmental health officials review a septic-system plan from the company.

Marcantonio faxed The Light a letter from Deputy County Counsel Alexis McBride to prove that his clients are being shut out of the case. In the letter, McBride conditionally agreed to sign a stipulation that would have allowed Johnson workers to be a legal party in the case.

"I am willing to sign [the stipulation] on behalf of the county but some of the introductory language is contrary to the county's position," McBride wrote, referring to two lines in the stipulation.

Marcantonio subsequently removed the word "employee" from "tenants are in possession of employee housing" and changed "Intervenors have a possessory interest" to "Intervenors claim a possessory interest" and sent the stipulation back to McBride.

McBride was unavailable for comment, but Michael Singleton, a county legal assistant, said the county agreed to Marcantonio's original stipulation before reading the total complaint.

When the county did read all of Marcantonio's complaint, Singleton said, the county discovered that he was asking the county to pay for relocation costs for the workers.

"It's always been the county's position that there is no legal authority for using taxpayers money to pay for relocating the occupants," Singleton said.

"They're the ones who brought these people onto the land illegally in the beginning," Singleton said, referring to the county's contention that the company put the mobilehomes on their property without the proper permits. "They should be the ones who provide for relocation costs."

Singleton noted that he was not privy to every meeting between McBride and Marcantonio, and that the conflict over the stipulation was caused by an honest misunderstanding.

Singleton added that, if the county signed the stipulation, it would amount to a "tacit agreement" that the county should pay for relocating the tenants.

"For me, it's shocking that the county would even think of opposing this."

Singleton said that because the tenants at Johnson's are not legal tenants, losing their housing would not be a "direct effect" of the county's efforts.

Still, directly or not, wouldn't the county's case result in evictions?

"Then the question is, who is responsible for their displacement," Singleton replied. "Our contention is that it is not the county's responsibility. We're simply enforcing the law."

A hearing on the tenants' interest in the case will be held at 9 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 22, at Civic Center. A hearing on the county's lawsuit is set for Dec. 13.