President Obama signs into law the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act;

WASHINGTON D.C.– President Barack Obama signed into law on Tuesday the Shasta-Trinity Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act.

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act will transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands located in northern California. The Act provides for resolution of land use, prior rights and hazardous substance issues.

In the 9th Circuit, Under CERCLA, the Liable Owner is the One on Deck When the Cleanup Occurs, Not When the Suit is Instituted

Believe it or not, in the 30 years of recorded decisions under CERCLA, the issue of who is an “owner” has not been decided, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California v. Hearthside Residential Corp. , case number 09-55389 (Decided July 22, 2010).

annuit coeptis - ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES BEGINS CLEANUP OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES SUPERFUND

The National Mining Association has filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, requesting the court to vacate recent federal rulings on surface mining and process a backlog of permit applications. The lawsuit, filed on July 20, alleges that the defendants violated federal law and overreached their authority by "substantially and illegally" amending the permitting process Arch argued that the EPA doesn't have the authority to revoke a Clean Water Act permit once it has been issued; the permit is for the Spruce No.1

District Court Rejects Owner-Operator Liability Under CERCLA for Sewer System Owner Discharging to River

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. ,On July 7, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an opinion on cross motions for summary judgment in United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) , No. 08-8722RJB, rejecting CERCLA owner-operator liability for the owner of a sewer system discharging to a river.  The U.S. had alleged that a storm sewer system owned and operated by WSDOT carried hazardous substances from various highways into waterways at the Commencement Bay-Nearshore Tideflats Superfund site in Tacoma, WA.  The federal government was seeking response costs for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the waterways.  Without citing any cases using similar reasoning, the Court settled on a narrow interpretation of current and former owner or operator liability under CERCLA Sections 107(a)(1) and 107(a)(2).  In the Court's view, a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) could be held liable as an owner or operator of a Superfund facility only if it is or was “the owner or operator of the facility in which the United States incurred a response cost.”  Because WSDOT does not own or operate the waterways where the federal government had incurred response costs, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on owner-operator liability. 

Both the government's argument and the Court's reading of Section 107(a) focused on the definition of the word “facility.”  To the Court, the WSDOT roadways and storm sewers could not be considered a single CERCLA facility along with the waterway because they “are reasonably or naturally divided into multiple parts or functional units.”  The Court's decision, which reflected the government's arguments, focused on whether the roadways, sewer, and waterways could be one large facility instead of whether WSDOT could be held liable under Section 107(a)(1) for a release from a facility into a waterway.  If the WSDOT opinion survives, this narrow application of owner-operator liability could reduce the universe of PRPs at contaminated sediment and groundwater Superfund sites. For more information, please contact Steve Jawetz at (202) 789-6045, sjawetz@bdlaw.com .

OLD WORLD MIX - MINERALS & METALS, PAINTS, STAINS & DYES, CATALYSTS & NANOSTUFF

PAHOMAKI FERTILIZER ADDS IMMI MINERALS SLOW RELEASE ESSENTIAL MICRONUTRIENTS

SULFUR COATED IBDU/UREA & AG-GEL MIX OFFERED FOR NURSERYMANS SPECIALTY BLEND

HUMATE RICH CORN GLUTEN MICROBIAL INNOCULANT FOR HU/MOUNTAIN COMPOST

PIPESTONE PIGMENT CO. OFFERS 72% GYPSUM 22% IRON OXIDES NATURAL IRON MOUNTAIN COLOR FOR CEMENT , CONTACT BY FAX MR. T.W. ARMAN, PRICES AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.

Fire reported at Iron Mountain Mine CONTACT: Dave Ryan 202-564-7827 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FREEMINERS T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC

EPA wants environmental justice part of rulemaking, FREEMINERS WANT JUSTICE

WRONGFUL USURPATION OF MINERAL PATENTS COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT, COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CAPACITY FOR JURISDICTION OR LEGISLATION, NO REASONABLE BASIS, NO PROBABLE CAUSE, NO PLAUSIBLE EXIGENCY, NO DUE PROCESS, NO EQUAL PROTECTION, NO DEAD FISH, DAMAGES WITHOUT INJURY, ATTAINDER AFTER THE FACT, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RECKLESS NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL TAKING UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND UNDER COLOR OF LAW WITH ENDANGERMENT TO OUR PEACE AND SAFETY BY FRAUD AND FALSE CLAIMS TO PERPETUATE INSIDIOUS BUREAUCRACY . $25,000 PER DAY FINE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 104(e) OSWER Directive No. 9829.2, Entry and Continued Access Under CERCLA (1987). Nothing in the OSWER language suggests that consent is mandatory

We conclude that failure to obtain written consent and in the absence of harm or injury and without QA or QAPP is arbitrary and capricious and is punishable by nonupled EPCRA 313/ RCRA 3007 GOVERNMENT FRAUD AND DERELICTION OF DUTIES damages and civil penalties under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5)(B). of $375,000 per day SINCE SEPTEMBER 4TH, 1983.

Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency released an interim guidance document showing EPA staff how to incorporate environmental justice into the agency's process of developing rules and regulations, news release said.

The guide is part of the EPA's efforts to protect the health and safety of groups that have been historically underrepresented in the decision-making process and are often most at risk from environmental hazards.

"Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven't had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA's work can make a real difference for health and the economy," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices."

The guide allows the EPA to meet responsibilities under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which orders all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of its mission.

ARREST EPA DREDGING OF EVIDENCE

July 26, 2010 EPA Releases Rulemaking Guidance on Environmental Justice

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing an interim guidance document to help agency staff incorporate environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking process. The rulemaking guidance is an important and positive step toward meeting EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's priority to work for environmental justice and protect the health and safety of communities who have been disproportionally impacted by pollution.

"Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven't had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA's work can make a real difference for health and the economy," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices."

The document, Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, seeks to advance environmental justice for low-income, minority and indigenous communities and tribal governments who have been historically underrepresented in the regulatory decision-making process. The guidance also outlines the multiple steps that every EPA program office can take to incorporate the needs of overburdened neighborhoods into the agency's decision-making, scientific analysis, and rule development. EPA staff is encouraged to become familiar with environmental justice concepts and the many ways they should inform agency decision-making.

EPA is seeking public feedback on how to best implement and improve the guide for agency staff to further advance efforts toward environmental justice.

To view the interim guidance and submit feedback: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej-rulemaking.html

More information on environmental justice: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

Those who won our independence... valued liberty as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.

If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.

In the frank expression of conflicting opinions lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action.

Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

Those who won our independence... valued liberty as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.

To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means is to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure a conviction of a private citizen, and would bring terrible retribution.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

The most important political office is that of private citizen.

That the existing unemployment is, in large part, of the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth and income which giant corporations have fostered; that by the control which few have exerted through giant corporations, individual initiative and effort are being paralyzed, creative power impaired and human happiness lessened; that the true prosperity of our past came not from big business, but through the courage, the energy and the resourcefulness of small men; that only by releasing from corporate control the faculties of the unknown many, only by reopening to them the opportunities for leadership, can confidence in our future be restored and the existing misery overcome; and that only through participation by the many in the responsibilities and determinations of business, can America secure the moral and intellectual development which is essential to the maintenance of liberty.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis

appeal certified under Rule 54(b) “there is some danger of hardship or injustice which an immediate appeal would alleviate.” Taco John’s, 569 F.3d at 402 (citing McAdams, 533 F.3d at 928).

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT MR. HARRY VINE AND JUDGE JOHN MENDEZ

ERROR AND MISTAKE OF IDENTITY, FATALLY DEFECTIVE, FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Dear Mr. Harry Vine,

I received an envelope at P.O. box 182 , Canyon, Ca. 94516, but apparently addressed to Mr. T.W. Arman. As you know, Mr. Arman has been the subject of litigation in your court since 1991, so you should be able to address correspondence to him without my assistance.

As this is not the first time I have informed you of this matter, I assume no responsibility for your failure to effect service upon Mr. T.W. Arman..

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of some other corrections that need to be made to your court that you should be aware of.

First, there appears to be some confusion in your court concerning ARMAN. Your court continues to oppress Mr. T.W. Arman regarding certain mine drainage at Iron Mountain Mine, which is actually the result of the actions of ARMAN, “archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganisms”, so named by Dr. Jillian Banfield of the University of California at Berkeley, and if you would have addressed your summary judgment to ARMAN at this address, would probably have been correct.

As the curator for the College of the Hummingbird and the Hummingbird Institute, and at the behest of Mr. T.W. Arman, the Arman Mines Institute, the Arman Mines Ministry of Natural Resources, the Arman Mines Hazard and Remediation Directorate and Disaster Assistance Directorate, it is my duty as resident expert to convey to you the facts concerning allegations of ‘hazardous' substances.

I read with interest the partial summary judgment of Mr. Mendez and can only conclude that your court lacks even one scintilla of common sense, has been entirely brainwashed by established beliefs of environmental religion, or are under a witches spell. Come to IMMI and walk it off.

Since there are no hazardous materials at Iron Mountain Mines we wish you would stop demonizing, libeling and slandering the good name of Iron Mountain Mine and Mr. T.W. Arman, as these damages continue to mount against the United States of America State of California.

Furthermore, since Mr. T.W. Arman has been trying for years to supply his minerals to farmers, gardeners, landscapers, horticulturalists, and others who work in agricultural enterprises that provide our food and sustain our environment, and it is well documented that minerals are necessary, for instance:

“Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of plants, animals and man. All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil.”

This was a statement made by Dr Alexus Carrel, Nobel Prize Winner, in 1912. Almost a hundred years later, agriculturist and writer, Graham Harvey, wrote in The Daily Telegraph , 18 February 2006: “ Britain 's once fertile soil has been systematically stripped of its crucial minerals by industrial farming, leaving our fruit and vegetables tasteless and a nation in chronic ill health.”

William Albrecht (1896-1974 Illinois), referred to as the Father of Soil Research for his pioneering studies of the effects of infertile soil on plants and animals, warned in 1930s that if the land was not remineralised, there would be a massive increase in human degenerative diseases.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that your actions are an act of aggression and war crime of attrition on us. Please void and vacate, grant us intervention, remission, reversion, & detinue sur bailment.

In fact our minerals were naturally distributed by the cycles of the seasons and the annual flooding that for half a million years fertilized the great valleys of California . In 1943 the United States of America State of California constructed the Shasta dam forever destroying this process, at the same time killing all the native anadramous fish such as the various Chinook Salmon of the McCloud river that were famously propagated around the world by the United States Baird Hatchery.

Now this court has apparently tried to shift the blame for these fishes demise on to Mr. T.W. Arman.

We really must take exception to the federal government perpetrating such a heinous deception

“Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” - Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 1

In short, this is not the change that the American people envisioned. Americans as a whole know that we have problems that need to be fixed, but they also know that ours is the greatest nation in the world and it does not need to be “fundamentally transformed”, but rather restored to the founding principles that made us great in the first place. I pray that more Americans will join the spontaneous uprising of their fellow citizens and take the time to study the Constitution and the Declaration and other foundational documents, so that we can understand American exceptionalism and help to restore it.

JULY, 2010: MR. T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINE COMMUNITY NOTICE OF LODGING CRIMINAL TRESPASS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA - GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER - ATTORNEY GENERALS BROWN AND HOLDER - CONGRESS - CALIFORNIA - EPA - DOJ - CVRWQCB - CAL FED - CAL DTSC - UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT COURT SACRAMENTO - NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES - HOMELAND SECURITY - DEPT. OF INTERIOR - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT - CH2MHILL - AISLIC - IRON MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS, LLC - AIG CONSULTANTS - AIG - BAYER CROP SCIENCES - FEMA - ASTRAZENECA - SANOFI/AVENTIS - JARDINE MATHESON; FRAUDS, THIEVES, KILLERS, JOINT AND SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS, PIRATES, ENSLAVERS, STARVATION! EJECTMENT:

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF - POSSE FOR TRESPASS OF TREASON AND MISPRISON OF FELONY WRIT OF POSSESSION UPON ADVERSE CLAIMS TRESSPASSERS OF PATENT TITLE; EXTORTION; FRAUD; DECEIT; MALICIOUS AND ABUSIVE NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT; ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND SLAVERY; CONSPIRACY; EVIL UPON THE PUBLIC TRUST; APEX LAW AGGRAVATED LARCENY OF MINING COMPANY SECURITY & COLLATERAL LR10-20762

INNOCENT PRISONERS OF THE EPA - DOJ SINCE 1983

FREE MR. T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC.

Administrative - EPA Order 3120.1b Scientific misconduct, fabrication or knowing falsification of data, research procedures, or data analysis is an offense which can result in immediate removal/ Suspension and Debarment / Civil Sanctions / Fines / Local AUSA Must Decide If Fraud Meets Criminal Prosecution Threshold / Culpability / Harm

Laboratory Fraud, Title 18 United States Criminal Code; Is It Criminal or Civil?

Fraud - 18 USC 1341 - 1343 , PROCEDURAL FRAUD, MEASUREMENT FRAUD

False Statements - 18 USC 1001

Conspiracy - 18 USC 371

Concealment of a felony - 18 USC 4 (misprision)

False Claims - 18 USC 287

Obstruction of Justice - 18 USC 1505 Consequences Ferro incumbere.

Penalties up to 20 years imprisonment for destroying, concealing or falsifying records with intent to obstruct or impede a legal investigation

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire; it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

MILITIA & POSSE - LOCKE & LODE!

INTERVENTION OF RIGHT! NINTH CIRCUIT RULES!

Mr. President Barack Obama, PILLAGE AND SLAVERY!

ARMAN MINERALS RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL & THE LOST HUMAN USE REMEDIATION & RESTORATION TRUST Hazard & Remediation Directorate offers $72 Billion Senior Notes, Tender Offers, & Renewable Energy Bonds

HAZARD AND REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE AND THE DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE ORDERS CHINOOK FOR ARMAN MINES MINISTRY & FOREST FIRE-FIGHTERS

I am corresponding to you again concerning my property known as Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., located in the Jefferson mining district of Shasta County, California .

I am again seeking your executive authority to resolve the status of my potential liability for the supposedly “unrecovered past response costs” that the EPA claims justify their liens against my properties.

I believe that you should provide this administrative order because:

(A) I am not a contributor to the 'hazardous' substances not at my facility or the toxic affects of the 'hazardous' substances not found at my facility, and

(B) I am the owner of the real property on which the facility is located and I did not conduct or permit the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of any 'hazardous' substance at the facility; and I did not contribute to the release or threat of release of a 'hazardous' substance at the facility through any action or omission.

I believe I have not received a fair deal from the EPA, and I have persevered in proclaiming my innocence and my entitlement to the innocent land owner defense despite the incredible hardship that I have had to endure for the last 33 years protesting the allegation that I have contributed to or caused the pollution that is the subject of this Superfund site.

I was denied the innocent landowner defense of 9601 (35) (A) (i) in a partial summary judgment proceeding in October of 2002 that incorrectly alleges that the innocent landowner defense is unavailable to me. The EPA stated to the Court that “This defense, however, is only available to PRPs who, at the time of purchase, “did not know, or had no reason to know that any hazardous substance which is the subject of the release or threatened release is disposed of on, in, or at the facility.” The EPA then incorrectly states that “Because IMMI purchased the property with knowledge of – indeed, at least in part, because of – the presence of hazardous materials, the innocent landowner defense is not available to IMMI.

I try to be understanding about how these things get confusing after all these years, and I hope that this was simply an error and was not perpetrated out of malice or ill will, and I can certainly understand how the Court would defer to the experts at the EPA in determining such matters, however, the fact is that when I purchased the property in October of 1976 Copper, Cadmium, and Zinc were not considered “hazardous substances” in storm water run-off. This determination did not occur until July, 1977 of the following year, when the Congress Transportation Subcommittee approved new regulations for the Clean Water Act regulating these metals in storm run-off as “hazardous substances”. Indeed, the Copper in the storm drainage, or Acid Mine Drainage as it is now called, was represented as a valuable asset by the sellers of the property to me at the time, and whatever they knew about pending legislation or other environmental matters they concealed from me (as was latter proven by the EPA and DOJ counsel when they subpoenaed the seller's records), and after the purchase the principle occupation of my company along with the sales of mine tailings was operating the cementation plant, which recovered the Copper from the drainage before it got to the river.

I recently read an EPA web page that refers to the Iron Mountain Mines Superfund site, which the EPA published back in 2000, entitled the “Superfund 20th Anniversary Report”.

Making the Program Faster, Fairer, and More Efficient (Continued)

Resolving Disputes Outside of Court
Some of the most complex and contested cases can be settled using an outside mediator -- allowing all the parties to spend their time and resources cleaning up sites rather than litigating cases in court.

For example, at the Landfill & Resource Recovery site in Rhode Island , the parties included 18 PRPs, along with the United States and the State of Rhode Island . Both the Federal and State claims were resolved with the help of a Federal district court judge with a settlement that reimbursed the government for 97 percent of its expected costs. The mediated settlement also provided funds to purchase wetlands to expand the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Center .

At the Auburn Road Landfill site in New Hampshire , a voluntary mediation led to a consent decree that resolved the government's claims against 31 PRPs. The settlers agreed to perform the remedy and to reimburse the United States for its past cleanup costs and future oversight costs. In addition, the settlers are reimbursing the State of New Hampshire and the Town of Londonderry for past cleanup costs and future oversight costs.

Protecting the "Little Guy"
Some Superfund sites have hundreds of PRPs, including small companies (or even individuals) who have contributed only a minor portion of the waste. These small contributors may be dragged into burdensome litigation by the PRPs which were primarily responsible for the contamination. EPA attempts to identify and resolve the liability of these small party contributors early in the process, leading to de micromis and de minimis settlements.

A de micromis party is someone whose contribution of waste is minimal. In fact, the costs of hiring a lawyer, and negotiating a settlement, would dwarf any amount the party could reasonably be expected to contribute to cleanup costs. Many times, the PRPs who contributed a major portion of the waste to a site sue the de micromis parties for contribution. EPA enters into a de micromis settlement with these parties to protect them from such suits.

For example, 47 homeowners who lived around the Raymark Industries site in Connecticut could be seen as de micromis parties since they only contributed household wastes to the site. EPA and the State of Connecticut protected these homeowners from being sued by entering into a settlement where each homeowner paid $1 to be protected from "third party" law suits brought by the major contributors.

A de minimis party has contributed more waste than a de micromis party, but the amount is still insignificant when compared with what has been contributed by some of the major PRPs -- for example, less than 1 percent of the waste at a site. With de minimis parties, EPA has placed a priority on achieving a quick, efficient resolution of their liability to protect them from burdensome litigation.

At the Tulalip Landfill in Washington , EPA settled with 207 de minimis parties very early in the process, resulting in the recovery of approximately $10 million and the identification of PRPs who made major contributions of waste to the site. At the Cherokee Oil Resources site in North Carolina , EPA entered into an early de minimis settlement with over 200 small contributors. Both the de minimis and the major contributors agreed not to sue over 1,000 de micromis parties.

EPA gets the "little guys out" of the Superfund enforcement. Over the years, 460 de minimis settlements have been reached with nearly 23,000 small waste contributors.

$1 Billion Settlement Reached at Iron Mountain Mine Site

Redding, California (October 19, 2000) -- The United States and the State of California announced a settlement today with Aventis Crop Sciences USA, Inc. to fund future cleanup costs that could approach $1 billion at the Iron Mountain Mine site . The settlement is one of the largest to be reached with a single private party in the history of the Superfund Program. The agreement will ensure long-term control of more than 95 percent of the releases from the site.

This 4,400-acre site, which operated from the 1860s through 1963, is historically the largest point source of toxic metals in the country, and the source of the most acidic mine drainage in the world. Prior to remediation, the mine discharged an average of a ton of toxic metals a day into the Upper Sacramento River, a critical salmon spawning habitat and central feature in the State's water system. Approximately 70,000 people used surface water within 3 miles of the site as their source of drinking water.

In 1983, EPA listed the site on the NPL at the State's request. Since then, numerous Federal and State agencies have worked together on this site which has been addressed in six stages starting with a series of emergency actions. In 1994, a high density sludge treatment plant was installed that removes 99.99 percent of metals from the site's toxic runoff.

The settlement pays for natural resource restoration projects, provides for operation and maintenance for 30 years, and guarantees additional funding for site costs incurred after the year 2030.

It seems somewhat ironic to me that the EPA is touting how they are “ Resolving Disputes Outside of Court” and “ Protecting the "Little Guy"” proclaiming the benefits of de micromis and de minimis settlements and apparently claiming that their dealings with Iron Mountain Mines is a good example of this.

Once again I respectfully submit that I am entitled to an innocent land owner defense.

The EPA treatment program has resulted so far in the accumulation of some 500,000 tons of sludge upon my property, and since the EPA apparently plans to let me continue making this sludge for another 3000 years, I am also asking for your assistance pursuant to Executive Order No. 13352, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq (a)(4), (b)(1 thru 8), and (c)(1 thru 3), and 6902 et seq (a)(1 thru 11) and (b), and 9622 (a), (b)(1 thru 4) to help me to correct this problem.

This is the umpteenth letter I have transmitted to you. I am wondering if you are even receiving these correspondences.

I am also seeking your assistance in promoting “cooperative conservation”, as provided for in your Executive Order No. 13352, and in accordance with the purposes expressed therein.

The last reply to my request, dated May 1, 2008, and signed by Kathleen Salyer , Chief of the Site Cleanup Branch of Region IX of the EPA, states that “businesses and individuals are not eligible for EPA technical assistance under the provisions of 6913 of RCRA.”

Clearly my request has been entirely misunderstood, as I believe that it is the EPA that is in need of assistance under the provisions of 6913 of RCRA.

I provide for your convenience the relevant text of 6901 of the Solid Waste Act.

b) Environment and health   The Congress finds with respect to the environment and health, that-- (1) although land is too valuable a national resource to be needlessly polluted by discarded materials, most solid waste is disposed of on land in open dumps and sanitary landfills; (2) disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on the land without careful planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment; (3) as a result of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.], the Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.], and other Federal and State laws respecting public health and the environment, greater amounts of solid waste (in the form of sludge and other pollution treatment residues) have been created. Similarly, inadequate and environmentally unsound practices for the disposal or use of solid waste have created greater amounts of air and water pollution and other problems for the environment and for health; (4) open dumping is particularly harmful to health, contaminates drinking water from underground and surface supplies, and pollutes the air and the land; (5) the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste management will result in substantial risks to human health and the environment; (6) if hazardous waste management is improperly performed in the first instance, corrective action is likely to be expensive, complex, and time consuming; (7) certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment, reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous wastes; and (8) alternatives to existing methods of land disposal must be developed since many of the cities in the United States will be running out of suitable solid waste disposal sites within five years unless immediate action is taken.   (c) Materials   The Congress finds with respect to materials, that-- (1) millions of tons of recoverable material which could be used are needlessly buried each year; (2) methods are available to separate usable materials from solid waste; and (3) the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments.   (d) Energy   The Congress finds with respect to energy, that-- (1) solid waste represents a potential source of solid fuel, oil, or gas that can be converted into energy; (2) the need exists to develop alternative energy sources for public and private consumption in order to reduce our dependence on such sources as petroleum products, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric generation; and (3) technology exists to produce usable energy from solid waste.   Since the EPA is administering the cleanup of the Acid Mine Drainage under the provisions of CERCLA, it is therefore a federal activity, as described in your Executive Order No. 13352.   “Sec. 3. Federal Activities. To carry out the purpose of this order, the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations and in coordination with each other as appropriate: (a) carry out the programs, projects, and activities of the agency that they respectively head that implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that: (i) facilitates cooperative conservation; (ii) takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources; (iii) properly accommodates local participation in Federal decisionmaking; and (iv) provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety; (b) report annually to the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality on actions taken to implement this order; and (c) provide funding to the Office of Environmental Quality Management Fund (42 U.S.C. 4375) for the Conference for which section 4 of this order provides.”

As Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. is a private for-profit organization, and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. has ownership and other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources, I believe I am entitled to the benefit of these provisions, and deserve to have the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration take and show “appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources.”

I offer these further observations:

Since the EPA undertook cleanup of Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. under the provisions of CERCLA and my designation on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1983, a great deal of research has been conducted by private, government, and academic experts.

It is now recognized and understood that the cause of the Acid Mine Drainage is due to the activity of a biological community of micro-organisms inhabiting the rock formations underground, and that these bacterium have shown us their remarkable ability to extract from the earth with ease those very metals which miners have struggled and toiled to extract for the benefit of mankind.

Words and Worlds: The Supreme Court in Rapanos and Carabell
Jonathan Z. Cannon
University of Virginia (UVA); University of Virginia - School of Law


2007

Virginia Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 277, 2007

Abstract:
This paper explores the expression of competing worldviews in the opinions of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An “ecological” worldview identified with modern environmentalism appears in Justice Steven's dissent and in Justice Kennedy's concurrence in these cases. An opposed “atomistic” worldview is evidenced in Justice Scalia's plurality opinion. These competing worldviews reflect different beliefs and values held by the justices affecting environmental regulatory cases such as Rapanos. The atomistic worldview is consistent with values of individual autonomy and mastery of the physical environment for economic advancement, the ecological worldview with values of individual restraint in support of a common good and fitting harmoniously into the natural and social environment. These competing worldviews, and their associated values, have contrary implications for law. Justices embracing the ecological worldview tend to favor a broad scope of federal regulatory power, limited property rights, and general interpretations of environmental regulatory authority. Justices resisting this worldview tend to have contrary views on these issues. The paper also argues that the same values that animate the substantive differences of the justices in cases such as Rapanos also may affect the justices' preferences for interpretational approaches. That is, the values that lead justices to be more or less accepting of the ecological model are also among the values that may influence justices to be textualists or intentionalists.

In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co ., 2010 WL 1980172 (C.A. 7 (Wis.) May 19, 2010).

CAFO Implementation Guidance under the CWA

The recent release of the EPA's “Implementation Guidance on CAFO Regulations” is likely to add to the conflict between the EPA, environmental groups, and CAFO owners/operators regarding proper implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The guidance, released on May 28th, is the product of a settlement agreement between the EPA and Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance . According to the settlement, the guidance is to assist permitting authorities with implementation of the NPDES permit regulations and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for CAFOs. The released guidance identifies certain factors and circumstances that the EPA believes will lead to a “discharge into waters of the United States,” which, in turn, will trigger the NPDES permit requirement. However, none of the standards or levels provided by the guidance are dispositive. Overall, the guidance seems to further obscure the already muddy waters surrounding exactly when a CAFO must obtain a NPDES permit and whether the EPA has authority to regulate CAFO's under the Clean Water Act absent an actual “discharge”.

Pursuant to the provisions of CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the definitions contained therein, that henceforth AMD should be recognized as an “Act of God”, because it is a “natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.”   Also we would suggest that mines do not fit within the description of a “facility”, which requires that a site is: “any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed.”   In as much as the presence of any “hazardous substance” that is a naturally occurring element whose source is located in the earth must necessarily be acknowledged as an “Act of God” for such an expression to have any meaning, and since no person is responsible for it having been “deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed”, it should therefore be understood that persons may no longer be blamed for AMD, and the “cooperative conservation” of such resources may proceed without the acrimonious litigation and waste which has heretofore been the hallmark of this debate.  

VERDICT OF THE MINER'S CHIEF AND THE WARDEN'S COURT: COERCIVE MONOPOLY FRAUD, LABORATORY FRAUD, TRUST, DESPOTISM AND TYRANNY, PERPETUATION OF INSIDIOUS EVIL ALLIANCE, PUBLIC ATTRITION AND MALNUTRITION, FEDERAL RESERVE ACT PIRACY, TREASON, ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION BY FALSE CLAIMS OF SCIENCE, PILLAGE AND SLAVERY; LIQUIDATE AIG - REMISSION EPA - REVERSION BY DOJ AND THE STATES WILL CHARGE THE TREASURY BACK IN LAND.

At its peak, American International Group (AIG) was one of the largest and most successful companies in the world, boasting a AAA credit rating, over $1 trillion in assets, and 76 million customers in more than 130 countries. Yet the sophistication of AIG ‘ s operations was not matched by an equally sophisticated risk-management structure. This poor management structure , combined with a lack of regulatory oversight, led AIG to accumulate staggering amounts of risk , especially in its Financial Products subsidiary, AIG Financial Products (AIGFP). Among its other operations, AIGFP sold credit default swaps (CDSs), instruments that would pay off if certain financial securities, particularly those made up of subprime mortgages, defaulted. So long as the mortgage market remained sound and AIG ‘ s credit rating remained stellar, these instruments did not threaten the company ? s financial stability. The financial crisis, however, fundamentally changed the equation on Wall Street . As subprime mortgages began to default, the complex securities based on those loans threatened to topple both AIG and other long-established institutions. During the summer of 2008, AIG faced increasing demands from their CDS customers for cash security – known as collateral calls – totaling tens of billions of dollars. These costs put AIG ‘ s credit rating under pressure, which in turn led to even greater collateral calls, creating even greater pressure on AIG ‘ s credit. By early September, the problems at AIG had reached a crisis point. A sinkhole had opened up beneath the firm, and it lacked the liquidity to meet collateral demands from its customers.  In only a matter of months AIG ‘ s worldwide empire had collapsed, brought down by the company ‘ s insatiable appetite for risk and blindness to its own liabilities.

AIG sought more capital in a desperate attempt to avoid bankruptcy. When the company  could not arrange its own funding, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President  Timothy Geithner, who is now Secretary of the Treasury, told AIG that the government would attempt to orchestrate a privately funded solution in coordination with JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. A day later, on September 16, 2008, FRBNY abandoned its effort at a private solution and rescued AIG with an $85 billion, taxpayer-backed Revolving Credit Facility (RCF). These funds would later be supplemented by $49.1 billion from Treasury under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve, with $133.3 billion outstanding in total.

The total government assistance reached $182 billion.

What was wrong with the way Geithner structured the bailout? The panel's members observe these faults:

1 . “ The government failed to exhaust all options before committing $85 billion in taxpayer funds. “ There were many untried options that could have saved a lot of money.

2 . “ The rescue of AIG distorted the marketplace by transforming highly risky derivative bets into fully guaranteed payment obligations. “ Talk about “moral hazard” — AIG shareholders keep the profits, if there are any, and the U.S. taxpayer bears the loss, if the bet doesn't pay off.   A lot of companies and individuals would love to have THAT deal.

3. “ Throughout its rescue of AIG, the government failed to address perceived conflicts of interest. “ People from the same small group of law firms, investment banks, and regulators appeared in the AIG saga in many roles, sometimes representing conflicting interests.

4. “ Even at this late stage, it remains unclear whether taxpayers will ever be repaid in full. AIG and Treasury have provided optimistic assessments of AIG ‘ s value. As current AIG CEO Robert Benmosche told the Panel, “I ‘ m confident you ? ll get your money, plus a profit.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, currently estimates that taxpayers will lose $36 billion . “

5. “ The government's actions in rescuing AIG continue to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace .”

$336,706,450 + $93,590,773 = $430,297,223 PAYABLE TO BEGIN SUPERFUND REMEDIATION

* 9 = $3,872,675,007 NONUPLED DAMAGES FROM AIG

Thank You for your consideration of this matter, Please make checks payable to: MR. T.W. Arman , owner,

According to the state supreme court, “[i]t is misconduct… to elicit or attempt to elicit inadmissible evidence… Because we consider the effect of the prosecutor's action on the defendant, a determination of bad faith or wrongful intent by the prosecutor it is not required for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct.” ( People v. Crew (2003) 31 Ca) The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law, including criminal defense lawyers.

“ A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ... the prosecutor represents “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall 'win a case,' but that justice shall be done.” ( Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.)' ” ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.)

“Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... ‘The duty of the attorney general is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence...' ” ( People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.) “The prosecutor's job isn't just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules.” (United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323.) “As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility… to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair trial …” (United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.)

Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include ( Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861:) "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." ( People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].) "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void. Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered, ( B & C Investments, INc. v. F &amp ; M Nat. Bank &amp ; Trust , 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App.Div 3, 1995). "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." ( Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150)

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. (The Court: Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates , Illinois , 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)

“The most obvious misconduct is to present false testimony or false evidence.” Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264; United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1993) 17 F.3d 1201; United States v. Valentine (2nd Cir. 1987) 820 F.2nd 565; SEE: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d); Penal Code § 1473(b), and Rule 5-200, Rules Prof. Conduct of State Bar.)

Due process is violated when false evidence is presented, whether offered intentionally or inadvertently. “Under well-established principles of due process, the prosecutor cannot present evidence it knows is false and must correct any falsity of which it is aware… even if the false evidence was not intentionally submitted.” ( Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66… Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264… People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 33 …” People v. Seaton , 26 Cal.4th 598, 647; see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213-214; People v.Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1192-1196.) “Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.” ( Sabariego v Maverick , 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461)

:" Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200, Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Deception to Court -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 – SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998) “…competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioner."

When a breach of ethics, and a duty of omission results in a wrong of commission, it is often because of ignoring empirical evidence, i.e., then the abused victim and the laws that protect the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has, or has not been committed through empirical evidence, and the law -- but if the agents turn a blind eye to both evidence and the law, justice is lost .

This is NOT “harmless error,” rather it is unethical, blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct, and may be moral turpitude, malum in se, ( State v. Stiffler , 788 P.2 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109).

. Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" 7 Witkin , Cal. Procedure, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.). ( Burns v. Municipal Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 596, 599 .)

A void judgment or proceeding founded on a void judgment is void: 30A Am Jur Judgments

ABUSE OF DISCRETION : A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

The human condition, which can be ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, perhaps deceived by their own, as Shakespeare says, "insolence of office" -- is what makes the presumption of innocence a good principle, if it is put into practice, for it is the basis for the protection of the innocent, allowing for the lay citizen to have the protection of the law beyond their own familiarity or understanding of it.

A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." ( Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) and, ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment.
“Attorneys should be disciplined for conduct that violates clearly established law, or conduct so outrageous that its illegality is obvious,”

SAFE AND NATURAL MINERALS FOR HEALTHY SOIL

(not for marijuana cultivation) no smoking

Symptoms of mineral deficiency in soil

TRY AG-GEL!

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate offers growers these performance benefits in agricultural applications:

• Reduces disease pressure.

• Provides resistance to mineral stress.

• Decreases climate stress.

• Improves plant strength.

• Increases growth and yeild.

Ag-Gel micronutrient with silicate reduces the stress from diseases including powdery mildew, pythium root rot, and rice blast. It resists or prevents toxicity from phosphorous, manganese, aluminum, and iron, and increases plant tolerance to salt.

Application of Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate improves leaf erectness, reduces susceptibility to lodging in grasses, and improves photosynthesis efficiency.

Crops that have demonstrated benificial responses to Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate application include rice, wheat, barley, sugar cane, tomatoes, beans, cucurbits, strawberries, grapes, roses, apples, grass, and ornamental plants.

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate can increase growth and yield by providing micronutrients and by reducing susceptibility to diseases and pests.

Iron in Plants

Iron is a absorbed by plant roots as Fe²+ and Fe³+. The chemical properties of iron making it an important part of oxidation-reduction reactions in both soils and plants. Because iron can exist in more than one oxidation state, it accepts or donates electrons according to the oxidation potential of the reactants. The transfer of electrons between the organic molecule and iron provides the potential for many of the enzymatic transformations. Several of these enzymes are involved in chlorophyll synthesis, and when iron is deficient chlorophyll production is reduced, which results in the characteristic chlorosis symptoms of iron stress.

Iron is a structural component of porphyrin molecules. These substances are involved in band oxidation-reduction reactions in respiration and photosynthesis. As much as 75% of the total cell iron is associated with chloroplast, and up to 90 percent of the iron in the leaves occurs with lipoprotein of the chloroplast and the mitochindria membranes.

The sufficiency range of time in plant tissue is normally between 50 and 250 ppm. and in general, when iron contents are 50 ppm or less in the dry matter, deficiency is likely to occur. Iron deficiency symptoms show up in the young leaves of plants, first because iron does not readily translocate from older tissues to the tip meristem; as a result, growth ceises. The young leaves develop an interveinal chlorosis, which progresses rapidly over the entire leaf. In severe cases the leaves turn entirely white. Iron toxicity can be observed under certain conditions. For example, in rice grown on poorly drained or submerge soils, a condition known as a bronzing is associated with greater than 300 ppm iron levels in rice leaves at telling.

Iron in soil

Mineral Fe. Iron comprises 5% of the earth's crust and is the fourth most abundant element in the lithosphere. Common primary and secondary iron minerals are olivene, siderite, hematite, goethite, magnetite, and limonite. Iron can be either concentrated or depleted during soil development; thus, iron concentrations in soil vary widely, from 0.7 to 55%. Most of the soil iron is found in primary minerals, clays, oxides, and hydroxides.

Forms and functions of Calcium in plants.

Ca is absorbed by plants as Ca²+ from the soil solution and is supplied to the root surface by mass flow and root interception. Ca deficiency is uncommon but can occur in highly leached and unlimed acidic soils. In soils abundant in Ca²+, excessive accumulation in the vicinity of roots can occur.

Ca²+ concentration in plants range from 0.2 to 1.0%. Ca is important in the structure and permeability of cell membranes. Lack of Ca²+ causes a breakdown of membrane structure, with resultant loss in retention of cellular diffusible compounds. Ca enhances uptake of NO3 and therefore is interrelated with N metabolism. Ca²+ provides some regulation in cation uptake. For example, studies have shown that K+ and Na+ uptake are about equal in the absence of Ca²+, but in its presence, K+ uptakes greatly exceeds Na+ uptake.

Ca is essential for cell elongation and division, and Ca²+ deficiency manifests itself in the failure of terminal buds of shoots and apical tips of roots to develop, which causes plant growth to cease. In corn Ca²+ deficiency prevents the emergence and unfolding of new leaves, the tips are almost colorless and are covered with sticky gelatinous material that causes them to adhere to one another. In fruits and vegetables, the most frequent indicator of Ca²+ deficiency consists of disorders in the storage tissues. Examples of Ca²+ disorders are bloom-end rot in tomato and bitter pit of apples. Finally, Ca²+ is generally immobile in the plant. There is very little translocation of Ca²+ in the phloem, and for this reason there is often a poor supply of Ca²+ to fruits and storage organs. Downward translocation of Ca²+ is also limited in roots, which usually prevents them from entering low-Ca soils.

Conditions impairing the growth of new roots will reduce root access to Ca²+ and induce deficiency. Problems related to inadequate Ca²+ uptake are more likely to occur with plants that have smaller root systems than with those possessing more highly developed root systems.

Special attention must be given to the Ca²+ requirements of certain crops, including peanuts, tomatoes, and celery, which are often unable to obtain sufficient Ca²+ from soils supplying adequate Ca²+ for most other crops. Proper Ca²+ supply is important for tree fruits and other crops such as alfalfa, cabbage, potatoes, and sugar beets, which are known to have high Ca²+ requirements.

Ca in Soil

The Ca concentration in the earth's crust is about 3.5%; however, the Ca²+ content in soils varies widely. Sandy soils of humid regions contain very low amounts of Ca²+, whereas Ca²+ normally ranges from 0.7 to 1.5% in noncalcareous soils of humid temperate regions; however, highly weathered soils of the humid tropics may contain as little as 0.1 to 0.3% Ca. Ca levels in calcareous soils vary from less than 1% to more than 25%.

Calcium concentrations in the soil higher than necessary for proper plant growth normally have low affect on the Ca²+ uptake, because Ca²+ uptake, is genetically controlled. Although the concentration of the soil solution is about 10 times greater than that of potassium, it's a uptake is usually lower than that a potassium. Plants capacity for uptake is limited because it can be absorbed only by young root tips in which the cell walls of the in the endodermis are still unsuberized.

As a general rule, course-textured, humid-region soils formed from rocks low in calcium minerals are low in calcium. The fine-textured soils formed from rocks high in calcium are much higher in both exchangeable and total calcium. However, in humid regions, even soils formed from limestone are frequently acetic in the surface layers because of the removal of calcium and other cations by excess leaching. As water containing dissolved CO2 percolates through the soil, the H + forms displaces Ca²+ (and other basic cations) on the exchange complex. If there is considerable percolation of such water through the soil profile, soils gradually become acidic. When leaching occurs, Na+ is lost more readily than Ca²+, however, since exchangeable and solution Ca²+ is much greater than Na+ in most soils, the quantity of Ca²+ lost is also much greater. Calcium is often the dominant cation in drainage waters, springs, streams, and lakes. Leaching of calcium ranges from 75 to 200 lbs. per acre per year. Since Ca²+ is absorbed on the cation exchange capacity (CEC), losses by erosion may be considerable in some soils.

Copper in plants.

Cu is absorbed by plants as the cupric ion, Cu²+, and may be absorbed as a component of either natural or synthetic organic complexes. It's normal concentration in plant tissue ranges from 5 to 20 ppm. Deficiencies are probable when Cu levels in plants fall below 4 ppm in the dry matter.

Symptoms of Cu deficiency vary with crop. In corn the youngest leaves become stunted, and as the deficiency becomes more severe, the young leaves pale and the older leaves die back. In advanced stages, dead tissue appears along the tips and edges of the leaves in a pattern similar to that of K deficiency. Cu-deficient small-grain plants lose color in young leaves, which eventually break, and the tips die. Stem melanosis and take-al root rot disease occur in certain wheat varieties when Cu is deficient. Also ergot infection is associated with Cu deficiency in some wheat and barley varieties. In many vegetables crops the leaves lack turgor. They develop a bluish-green cast, become chlorotic, and curl, and flower production fails to take place.

Cu in it's reduced form readily binds and reduces O2. In the oxidized form the metal is readily reduced, and protein-complexed Cu has a high redox potential. Enzymes that create complex polymers such as lignin and melanin exploit these properties of Cu. Cu is unique in its involvement in enzymes, and its cannot be replaced by any other metal ion.

Toxicity symptoms include reduced shoot vigor, poorly developed and discolored root systems, and leaf chlorosis. The chlorotic condition in shoots superficially resembles Fe deficiency. Toxicities are uncommon, occurring in limited areas of high Cu availability; after additions of high-Cu materials such as sewage sludge, municipal composts, pig and poultry manure's, and mine wastes; and from repeated use of Cu-containing pesticides.

Copper in soil.

Cu concentration in the earth's crust average about 55 t0 70 ppm. Igneous rocks contain 10 to 100 ppm Cu, while sedimentary rocks contain between 4 and 45 ppm Cu. Cu concentration in soils ranges from 1 to 40 ppm and averages about 9 ppm. Total soil Cu may be 1 or 2 ppm in deficient soils.

Copper interaction with other nutrients.

There are numerous interactions involving Cu. Applications of N-P-K fertilization can induce Cu deficiencies. Furthermore, increased growth resulting from the application of N or other nutrients may be proportionally greater than Cu uptake, which dilutes Cu concentration in plants. Increasing the N supply to crops can reduce mobility of Cu in plants, since large amounts of N in plants impede translocation of Cu from older leaves to new growth. High concentration of Zn, Fe, and P in soil solution can also depress Cu absorption by plant roots and may intensify Cu deficiency.

Plant Factors.

Crops vary greatly in response to Cu. Among small-grain species, rye has exceptional tolerance to low levels of soil Cu and will be healthy, whereas wheat fails completely without the application of Cu. Rye can extract up to twice as much Cu as wheat under the same conditions. The usual order of sensitivity of the small grains to Cu deficiency in the field is wheat > barley > oats > rye. Varietal differences in tolerance to low Cu are important, and sometimes they can be as large as those among crop species.

Severe Cu deficiency in crops planted in soils with high C/N residues is related to (1) reactions of Cu with organic compounds originating from decomposing straw, (2) competition for available Cu by stimulated microbial populations, and (3) inhibition of root development and the ability to absorb Cu. If the soil-available Cu is low, manure added to a field may accentuate the problems. Organic material from manure, straws, or hay can tie up Cu, making it unavailable to plants.

Copper - Functions in the plant or soil

1. Essential for chlorophyll formation

2. Essential in many plant enzymes (oxidases in particular)

3. It is involved in electron transfer

4. Essential in enzyme systems associated with grain, seed, and fruit formation

5. It has a marked effect on the formation and chemical composition of cell walls - Very distinct on stem tissue

Copper - Special considerations

1. Copper can be used as a fungicide on plants

2. Excessive amounts of copper can cause iron deficiency

3. It is rather immobile in plants, therefore deficiency symptoms usually occur on new growth

Copper - The conditions associated with deficiencies

1. Sandy soils

2. High organic soils

3. Overlimed soils

4. High pH soils

5. Soils with high concentrations of phosphate and nitrogen

Copper - Deficiency Symptoms

Corn

1. General chlorosis of younger leaves

2. Leaf tips die and curl like pig tails

3. Interveinal chlorosis toward lower end of leaves

Small Grains

1. High organic matter soils - Yellowing of plant

2. Leaf tip dieback and twisting of leaf tips

Alfalfa

1. Youngest tissue turns faded green with grayish cast

2. Plants appear bushy and drought-stricken

Forms and Functions of Magnesium (Mg) in Plants

Mg is absorbed by plants as Mg²+ from the soil solution and, like Ca²+, is supplied to plant roots by mass flow and diffusion. Root interception contributes much less Mg²+ to uptake than Ca²+. The amount of Mg²+ taken up by plants is usually less than that of Ca²+ or K+.

Mg²+ concentration in crops varies between 0.1 to 0.4%. Mg²+ is a primary constituent of chlorophyll, and without chlorophyll the autotrophic green plant would fail to carry on photosynthesis. Chlorophyll usually accounts for about 15 to 20% of the total Mg²+ content of plants.

Mg also serves as a structural component to ribosomes, stabilizing them in the configuration necessary for protein synthesis. As a consequence of Mg²+ deficiency, the proportion of protein N decreases and that of non proteins N generally increases in plants.

Mg is associated with transfer reactions involving phosphate-reactive groups. Mg is required for maximum activity of most every phosphorylating enzyme in carbohydrate metabolism. Most reactions involving phosphates transfer from bad adenosine triphosphate (ATP) require Mg²+. Since the fundamental process of energy transfer occurs in photosynthesis, glycolysis, the citric or acid cycle, and respiration, Mg²+ is important throughout plant metabolism.

Because of the mobility of plant Mg²+ and it's ready transportation from older to younger plant parts, deficiency symptoms often appear first on the lower leaves. In many species, shortage of Mg²+ results in interveinal chlorosis of the leaf, in which only the veins remain green. In more advance stages the leaf tissue becomes uniformly pale yellow, then brown and necrotic. In other species, notably cotton, the lower leaves may develop a reddish-purple cast, gradually turning brown and finally necrotic.

Mg in Soil

Mg constitutes 1.93% of the earth's crust; however, the Mg²+ content of soils ranges from 0.1% in course, sandy soils in humid regions to 4% in fine-textured, arid, or semiarid soils formed from high-Mg parent materials.

The Mg concentration of soil solutions is typically 5 to 50 ppm in temperate- region soils, although Mg²+ concentrations between 120 and 2,400 ppm have been observed. Mg²+, like Ca²+, can be leached from soils, and Mg losses of 5 to 60 lbs./acre have been observed. The amounts lost depend on the interaction of several factors, including the Mg content of soil, rate of weathering, intensity of leaching, and the uptake by plants. Leaching of Mg²+ is often a problem in sandy soils, particularly following the addition of fertilizer such as KCL and K2SO4. Very little Mg displacement occurs when equivalent amounts of K are applied as either CO3²-, HCO3, or H2PO4-. Apparently, Mg²+ desorption and leaching in coarse-texture soils are enhanced by the presence of soluble Cl- and SO4²-. As with Ca²+, erosion losses can be considerable in some soils.

Mg in clay minerals is slowly weathered out by leaching and exhaustive cropping. Conditions in which Mg is likely to be deficient include acidic, sandy, highly leached soils with low CEC; calcareous soils with inherently lower Mg levels; acidic soils receiving high rates of lining materials low in Mg; higher rates of NH4+ or K+ fertilization; and crops with Mg demand.

Mg Sources

In contrast to calcium, the primary nutrient fertilizers contain magnesium, with the exception of K2SO4 · MgSO4. Dolomite is commonly applied to low-Mg acidic soils. K2SO4 · MgSO4 and MgSO4 (Epsom salts) are the most widely used materials in dry fertilizer formulation. Other materials containing Magnesium are magnesia (MgO, 55% Mg), magnesium nitrate [Mg(NO3)2. 16% Mg], magnesium silicate (basic slag, 3 to 4 % Mg; serpentine, 26% Mg), magnesium chloride solution (MgCl2 ( 10 H20, 8 to 9% Mg), synthetic chelates (2 to 4% Mg), and natural organic complexing substances (4 to 9% Mg). MgSO4, MgCl2, Mg(NO3)2, and synthetic and natural magnesium chelates are well-suited for application in clear liquids and foliar sprays. Magnesium deficiency of citrus trees in California is frequently corrected by foliar applications of Mg(NO3)2. In some tree-fruit growing areas, MgSO4 solutions are applied to maintain levels, and in seriously deficient orchards several annual applications are necessary. K2SO4 ¸ MgSO4 are the most widely used magnesium additives in suspensions. Special suspension grade [100% passing through a 20-mesh screen] of this material is available commercially. Magnesium content in animal and municipal waste is similar to S content and can therefore be used to supply sufficient magnesium.

Manganese in Soil

Mineral manganese. Manganese concentration in the earth's crust average 1000 ppm, and manganese is found in most iron-magnesium rocks. Manganese, when released through weathering of primary rocks, will combine with O2 to form secondary minerals, including pyrolusite (MnO2), hausmannite (Mn3O4), and manganite (MnOOH). Pyrolusite and manganite are the most abundant.

Total manganese in soils generally range between 20 and 3,000 ppm and averages about 600 ppm. Manganese in soils occurs as various oxides and hydroxide coated on soil particles, deposited in cracks and veins, and mixed with iron oxides and other soil constituents.

Soil solution manganese. The principal species in solution is Mn²+ , which decreases 100-fold for each unit increase in pH, similar to the behavior of other divalent metal cations. The concentration of Mn²+, in solution is predominately controlled by MnO2. Concentration of Mn²+ in the soil solution of the acidic and neutral soils is commonly in the range of 0.01 to 1 ppm, with organically complexed Mn²+ comprising about 90 percent of solution Mn²+. Plants take up Mn²+, which moves to their root surface by diffusion.

Manganese in soil solutions is greatly increased under acidic, low-redox conditions. In extremely acidic soils, Mn²+ solubility can be sufficiently great to cause toxicity problems in sensitive plant species.

Interaction with other nutrients

High levels of copper, iron, or zinc, can reduce manganese uptake by plants. Addition of acid-forming NH4+ to soil will enhance manganese uptake.

Plant Factors

Several plant species exhibit differences in sensitivity to manganese deficiency. These differences in the response of manganese deficient and manganese inefficient plants are due to internal factors rather than to the facts of the plants on the soil. Reductive capacity at the root may be the factor restricting manganese uptake and translocation. There may also be significant differences in the amounts and properties of root exudates generated by plants, which can influence Mn²+ availability. It is possible that plant characteristics possessed by irony fission plants may similarly influence manganese uptake in plants and their tolerance to manganese stress.

Manganese sources

Organic manganese. The manganese concentration in most animal wastes is similar to zinc, ranging between 0.01 and 0.05% (0.2and 1 lb. / t). Thus, with most manures, average application rates will provide sufficient plant available manganese. As with iron, zinc, and copper, the primary benefits of organic waste application is increased organic material and associated natural chelation properties that increased manganese concentration in soil solution and plant availability. As with the other micronutrients, manganese content in municipal waste varies greatly depending on the stores. On average, manganese content is about half the copper content (0.05%, or one pound per ton).

Organic manganese. Manganese sulfate is widely used for correction of manganese deficiency and may be soil or foliar applied. In addition to organic manganese fertilizers, natural organic complexes and chelated manganese are available and are usually foliar applied.

Manganese oxide (MnO) is only slightly water soluble, but it is usually a satisfactory source of manganese. Manganese oxide must be finely ground to be affected. Rates of manganese applications range from 1 to 25 lbs. per acre; higher rates are recommended for broadcast application, while lower rates are foliar applied. Band-applied manganese is generally more effective than broadcast manganese, and band treatments are usually about one-half of the broadcast rates. Oxidation to less available forms of manganese is apparently delayed with band-applied manganese. Applications at the higher rates may be required on organic soils. Band application of manganese in combination with N-P-K fertilizers is commonly practiced.

Broadcast application of manganese chelates and natural organic complexes is not normally advised because soil calcium or iron can replace manganese in these chelates, and the freed manganese is usually converted to unavailable forms. Meanwhile, the more available chelated calcium or iron probably accentuates the manganese deficiency. Limestone or high-pH-induced manganese deficiency can be rectified by acidification resulting from the use of sulfur or other assets-forming materials.

Manganese - Functions in plant or soil

1. It has a role in production of chlorophyll but is not a component

2. It is involved in electron transfer reactions

3. Involved in enzyme systems, arginase and phosphotransferase

4. Involved in enzyme systems of sugar metabolism

5. Participates in oxygen-evolving system of photosynthesis

6. Involved in electron transport in chloroplasts

7. Involved in transfer of electrons from water to the photosynthetic II protein fraction

8. It accelerates germination and maturity

Manganese - Special considerations

1. Its solubility increases 100 fold per unit drop in pH - can be toxic in low pH soils

2. Manganese concentrated in leaves and stems - seeds contain only small amounts

3. High concentration of Mn in soil can lead to poor iron absorption

Manganese - The conditions associated with deficiencies

1. High soil pH

2. High organic soils

3. Cool wet soil conditions

4. Overlimed soils - High calcium levels

Manganese - Deficiency symptoms

Corn & Grain Sorghum

1. Interveinal chlorosis with general stunting similar to iron deficiency except iron is seldom short on high organic matter soils

Small Grains

1. Marginal gray and brown necrotic spots and streaks appearing on basal portion of leaves

2. Ends of affected leaves may stay green for an extended time

3. On older affected leaves the spots are oval and gray brown

Soybeans

1. Interveinal chlorosis

2. As deficiency becomes more severe, leaves become pale green, then yellow

3. Brown necrotic spots develop as deficiency becomes more pronounced

4. Veins remain darker as compared to iron deficiency

Zinc (Zn)

Zinc is involved in many enzymatic activities, but it is not known whether it acts as a functional, structural, or regulatory cofactor.

Zinc - Functions in plant or soil

1. Involved in large number of enzymes - including dehydrogenases, aldolases, isomerases, transphosphorylases, RNA and DNA polymerases

2. Involved in carbohydrate metabolism

3. Involved in the rate of protein synthesis

Zinc - Special considerations

1. Availability enhanced significantly by presence of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil

2. It is not subject to oxidation-reduction reactions in soil-plant system

3. It is quite immobile in the soil

4. It will bond strongly with sulfide formed from decomposing humus under anaerobic conditions

5. Solubility increases 100 fold for each pH unit lowered

Zinc - The conditions associated with deficiencies

1. High pH soils

2. Calcareous soils

3. Overlimed soils

4. Sandy soils

5. Soils where anaerobic decomposition is present

6. High soil phosphorus levels - Varies by crop

7. Cold wet soils

Zinc - Deficiency symptoms

Corn

1. Appear within first 2 weeks after emergence

2. Broad band of chloritic tissue on one or both sides of leaf midrib - most pronounced towards base of leaf

3. Young leaves most severely affected

4. Delayed maturity and reduced yields

Grain Sorghum

1. Similar to corn

Small Grain

1. Similar to corn

Soybeans

1. Chlorosis of younger leaves

2. Chlorosis may extend to all leaves on plant

3. Total chlorosis without green veins

Silica (Si)

Silica is one of the most abundant elements on the surface of the earth. Silica contributes to the structure of cell walls. Concentrations of up to 10% occur in silica rich plants. Silica primarily impregnates the walls of epidermis and vascular tissues, where it appears to strengthen the cell wall, reduce water loss, and retard fungal infection.

The involvement of silica in root functions is believed to be its contribution to the drought tolerance of crops. Although no biochemical role for silica in plant development has been positively identified, it has been proposed that in enzyme-silicon complexes they act as protectors or regulators of photosynthesis and enzyme activity.

The beneficial effects of silicon have been attributed to corrections of soil toxicity arising from high levels of available manganese, iron, and aluminum; plant disease resistance; increased availability of phosphorus; and reduced transpiration.

Silica - Functions in plant or cell

1. In epidermal cell walls silica reduces water loss by cuticular transpiration

2. Silica acts as a barrier against invasion of parasites and pathogens in endodermis cells of roots

3. Silica increases epidermal layer of leaves resistance to fungal attacks.

4. Silica is associated with incorporation of inorganic phosphate into ATP, ADP, and sugar phosphates

Silica - Special considerations

1. Because of the abundance of silica in the soil, it is difficult to prove it is an essential micronutrient for higher plants

2. Silica reduced manganese and iron toxicity where soil levels are excessive

Silica - The conditions associated with deficiencies

1. Undefined

Silica - Deficiency symptoms

Wetland Rice

1. Reduced vegetative growth and grain production

Sugarcane

1. Drastic reduction in growth

2. Leaf freckling on leaf blades directly exposed to full sunlight

Sulfur (S)

Although more than 95% of soil sulfur is bonded in organic forms and present in the upper layers of most soils, these reserves are not readily available to the plant.

Forms of Sulfur in Plants:

Sulfur is absorption by plant roots almost exclusively as sulfate, SO4-². Small quantities of SO2 can be absorbed through plant leaves and utilized within plants, but high concentrations are toxic. Typically concentrations of sulfur in plants range between 0.1 and 0.5%. Among the families of crop plants sulfur content increases in order Gramineae < Leguminosae < Cruciferae and is reflected in the differences in sulfur content of their seeds: 0.18-0.19%, 0.25-0.3%, and 1.1-1.7%, respectively.

Functions of Sulfur in Plants

Sulfur is required for synthesis of the S-containing amino acids, which are essential components of protein. Approximately 90% of the sulfur in plants is found in these amino acids. Increasing sulfur availability increase sulfur content in leaves, which increases sulfur containing amino acids.

Plants suffering sulfur deficiency accumulate non-protein nitrogen in the form of NH2 and NH3. It is apparent that sulfur fertilization improves the quality of this forage by narrowing the nitrogen to sulfur ratio. A Nitrogen to sulfur ratio of between 9:1 and 12: 1 is needed for effective use of nitrogen by rumen and microorganisms. This beneficial effect of sulfur fertilization on improving crop quality through reductions in the nitrogen to sulfur ratio is important in animal nutrition.

Ag-Gel is a naturally occurring micronutrient plant fertilizer concentrated into a soluble silicate gel. Produced from naturally occurring micronutrient mineral sources, Ag-Gel is a semi-permeable gel membrane that absorbs and holds over 700% its dry weight in water. When applied to the soil it creates a nutrient rich moisture barrier which helps reduce evaporation from the soil while providing plants essential nutrients they need to thrive.

The Solution to our Chronic Mineral Deficiency Now!

Categories: Food , Health

by Dawn Adrienne Taylor

Information has finally reached the daily press warning of the link between
mineral-deficient foods and degenerative diseases. But what can we
do to improve our health immediately and prevent future disease?
It took almost 30 years of sourcing optimum nutrition before
I discovered a unique 75 organic plant-derived mineral
supplement that is transforming my health
and that of countless others.

“Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of plants, animals and man.
All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil.”

This was a statement made by Dr Alexus Carrel, Nobel Prize Winner, in 1912. Almost a hundred years later, agriculturist and writer, Graham Harvey, wrote in The Daily Telegraph , 18 February 2006: “Britain's once fertile soil has been systematically stripped of its crucial minerals by industrial farming, leaving our fruit and vegetables tasteless and a nation in chronic ill health.”

William Albrecht (1896-1974 Illinois), referred to as the Father of Soil Research for his pioneering studies of the effects of infertile soil on plants and animals, warned in 1930s that if the land was not remineralised, there would be a massive increase in human degenerative diseases.

under the circumstances of the case the demand for entry or inspection is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Iron Mountain Mine and T.W. Arman intervene, "two miners"

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1

§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 2

§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3

§ 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony

(a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. (b) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia, and any State or States or foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Trusts in restraint of import trade illegal; penalty

Every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations, either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, t is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who shall be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this section, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States such person shall be fined in a sum not less than $100 and not exceeding $5,000, and shall be further punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 9

§ 9. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure

The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 8 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 10

§ 10. Bringing in additional parties

Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 9 of this title may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 12

§ 12. Definitions; short title

(a) “Antitrust laws,” as used herein, includes the Act entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; sections seventy-three to seventy-six, inclusive, of an Act entitled “An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,” of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; an Act entitled “An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled ‘An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,' ” approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and also this Act. “Commerce,” as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands. The word “person” or “persons” wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. (b) This Act may be cited as the “Clayton Act”.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 101 > § 7506

§ 7506. Department of Commerce programs

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 101 > § 7507

§ 7507. Department of Energy programs

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 101 > § 7508

§ 7508. Additional centers

(a) American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center The Program shall provide for the establishment, on a merit-reviewed and competitive basis, of an American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center which shall— (1) conduct, coordinate, collect, and disseminate studies on the societal, ethical, environmental, educational, legal, and workforce implications of nanotechnology; and (2) identify anticipated issues related to the responsible research, development, and application of nanotechnology, as well as provide recommendations for preventing or addressing such issues. (b) Center for nanomaterials manufacturing The Program shall provide for the establishment, on a merit reviewed and competitive basis, of a center to— (1) encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission, collect, and disseminate research on new manufacturing technologies for materials, devices, and systems with new combinations of characteristics, such as, but not limited to, strength, toughness, density, conductivity, flame resistance, and membrane separation characteristics; and (2) develop mechanisms to transfer such manufacturing technologies to United States industries. (c) Reports The Council, through the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, shall submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science— (1) within 6 months after December 3, 2003, a report identifying which agency shall be the lead agency and which other agencies, if any, will be responsible for establishing the Centers described in this section; and (2) within 18 months after December 3, 2003, a report describing how the Centers described in this section have been established.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 21

§ 21. Enforcement provisions

(a) Commission, Board, or Secretary authorized to enforce compliance Authority to enforce compliance with sections 13 , 14 , 18 , and 19 of this title by the persons respectively subject thereto is vested in the Surface Transportation Board where applicable to common carriers subject to jurisdiction under subtitle IV of title 49 ; in the Federal Communications Commission where applicable to common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy; in the Secretary of Transportation where applicable to air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49 ; in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System where applicable to banks, banking associations, and trust companies; and in the Federal Trade Commission where applicable to all other character of commerce to be exercised as follows: (b) Issuance of complaints for violations; hearing; intervention; filing of testimony; report; cease and desist orders; reopening and alteration of reports or orders Whenever the Commission, Board, or Secretary vested with jurisdiction thereof shall have reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions of sections 13 , 14 , 18 , and 19 of this title, it shall issue and serve upon such person and the Attorney General a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the Commission, Board, or Secretary requiring such person to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. The Attorney General shall have the right to intervene and appear in said proceeding and any person may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the Commission, Board, or Secretary, to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Commission, Board, or Secretary. If upon such hearing the Commission, Board, or Secretary, as the case may be, shall be of the opinion that any of the provisions of said sections have been or are being violated, it shall make a report in writing, in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest itself of the stock, or other share capital, or assets, held or rid itself of the directors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of this title, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order. Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or, if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until the record in the proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the Commission, Board, or Secretary may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, the Commission, Board, or Secretary may at any time, after notice and opportunity for hearing, reopen and alter, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or order made or issued by it under this section, whenever in the opinion of the Commission, Board, or Secretary conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require such action or if the public interest shall so require: Provided, however, That the said person may, within sixty days after service upon him or it of said report or order entered after such a reopening, obtain a review thereof in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States, in the manner provided in subsection (c) of this section. (c) Review of orders; jurisdiction; filing of petition and record of proceeding; conclusiveness of findings; additional evidence; modification of findings; finality of judgment and decree Any person required by such order of the commission, board, or Secretary to cease and desist from any such violation may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States for any circuit within which such violation occurred or within which such person resides or carries on business, by filing in the court, within sixty days after the date of the service of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the commission, board, or Secretary, and thereupon the commission, board, or Secretary shall file in the court the record in the proceeding, as provided in section 2112 of title 28 . Upon such filing of the petition the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein concurrently with the commission, board, or Secretary until the filing of the record, and shall have power to make and enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the commission, board, or Secretary, and enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed, and to issue such writs as are ancillary to its jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgment to prevent injury to the public or to competitors pendente lite. The findings of the commission, board, or Secretary as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. To the extent that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary is affirmed, the court shall issue its own order commanding obedience to the terms of such order of the commission, board, or Secretary. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the commission, board, or Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the commission, board, or Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission, board, or Secretary may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and shall file such modified or new findings, which if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28 . (d) Exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Appeals Upon the filing of the record with its jurisdiction of the court of appeals to affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside orders of the commission, board, or Secretary shall be exclusive. (e) Liability under antitrust laws No order of the commission, board, or Secretary or judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person from any liability under the antitrust laws. (f) Service of complaints, orders and other processes Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission, board, or Secretary under this section may be serviced by anyone duly authorized by the commission, board, or Secretary, either (1) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (2) by leaving a copy thereof at the residence or the principal office or place of business of such person; or (3) by mailing by registered or certified mail a copy thereof addressed to such person at his or its residence or principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process mailed by registered or certified mail as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same. (g) Finality of orders generally Any order issued under subsection (b) of this section shall become final— (1) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time; but the commission, board, or Secretary may thereafter modify or set aside its order to the extent provided in the last sentence of subsection (b) of this section; or (2) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the order of the commission, board, or Secretary has been affirmed, or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals, and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed; or (3) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the commission, board, or Secretary has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or (4) upon the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be affirmed or the petition for review be dismissed. (h) Finality of orders modified by Supreme Court If the Supreme Court directs that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be modified or set aside, the order of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court shall become final upon the expiration of thirty days from the time it was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected to accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the commission, board, or Secretary shall become final when so corrected. (i) Finality of orders modified by Court of Appeals If the order of the commission, board, or Secretary is modified or set aside by the court of appeals, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court then the order of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered in accordance with the mandate of the court of appeals shall become final on the expiration of thirty days from the time such order of the commission, board, or Secretary was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected so that it will accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the commission, board, or Secretary shall become final when so corrected. (j) Finality of orders issued on rehearing ordered by Court of Appeals or Supreme Court If the Supreme Court orders a rehearing; or if the case is remanded by the court of appeals to the commission, board, or Secretary for a rehearing, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired, and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered upon such rehearing shall become final in the same manner as though no prior order of the commission, board, or Secretary had been rendered. (k) “Mandate” defined As used in this section the term “mandate”, in case a mandate has been recalled prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof, means the final mandate. (l) Penalties Any person who violates any order issued by the commission, board, or Secretary under subsection (b) of this section after such order has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States. Each separate violation of any such order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or neglect to obey a final order of the commission, board, or Secretary each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 37

§ 37. Immunity from antitrust laws

(a) Inapplicability of antitrust laws Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the antitrust laws, and any State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, shall not apply to charitable gift annuities or charitable remainder trusts. (b) Immunity Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, any person subjected to any legal proceeding for damages, injunction, penalties, or other relief of any kind under the antitrust laws, or any State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, on account of setting or agreeing to rates of return or other terms for, negotiating, issuing, participating in, implementing, or otherwise being involved in the planning, issuance, or payment of charitable gift annuities or charitable remainder trusts shall have immunity from suit under the antitrust laws, including the right not to bear the cost, burden, and risk of discovery and trial, for the conduct set forth in this subsection. (c) Treatment of certain annuities and trusts Any annuity treated as a charitable gift annuity, or any trust treated as a charitable remainder trust, either— (1) in any filing by the donor with the Internal Revenue Service; or (2) in any schedule, form, or written document provided by or on behalf of the donee to the donor; shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of this section and section 37a of this title to be respectively a charitable gift annuity or a charitable remainder trust, unless there has been a final determination by the Internal Revenue Service that, for fraud or otherwise, the donor's annuity or trust did not qualify respectively as a charitable gift annuity or charitable remainder trust when created. (d) Limitation Subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply with respect to the enforcement of a State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, with respect to charitable gift annuities, or charitable remainder trusts, created after the State enacts a statute, not later than December 8, 1998, that expressly provides that subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply with respect to such charitable gift annuities and such charitable remainder trusts.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 15c Prev | Next

§ 15c. Actions by State attorneys general

How Current is This? (a) Parens patriae; monetary relief; damages; prejudgment interest (1) Any attorney general of a State may bring a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the defendant, to secure monetary relief as provided in this section for injury sustained by such natural persons to their property by reason of any violation of sections 1 to 7 of this title. The court shall exclude from the amount of monetary relief awarded in such action any amount of monetary relief (A) which duplicates amounts which have been awarded for the same injury, or (B) which is properly allocable to (i) natural persons who have excluded their claims pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, and (ii) any business entity. (2) The court shall award the State as monetary relief threefold the total damage sustained as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The court may award under this paragraph, pursuant to a motion by such State promptly made, simple interest on the total damage for the period beginning on the date of service of such State's pleading setting forth a claim under the antitrust laws and ending on the date of judgment, or for any shorter period therein, if the court finds that the award of such interest for such period is just in the circumstances. In determining whether an award of interest under this paragraph for any period is just in the circumstances, the court shall consider only— (A) whether such State or the opposing party, or either party's representative, made motions or asserted claims or defenses so lacking in merit as to show that such party or representative acted intentionally for delay or otherwise acted in bad faith; (B) whether, in the course of the action involved, such State or the opposing party, or either party's representative, violated any applicable rule, statute, or court order providing for sanctions for dilatory behavior or other wise providing for expeditious proceedings; and (C) whether such State or the opposing party, or either party's representative, engaged in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation or increasing the cost thereof. (b) Notice; exclusion election; final judgment (1) In any action brought under subsection (a)(1) of this section, the State attorney general shall, at such times, in such manner, and with such content as the court may direct, cause notice thereof to be given by publication. If the court finds that notice given solely by publication would deny due process of law to any person or persons, the court may direct further notice to such person or persons according to the circumstances of the case. (2) Any person on whose behalf an action is brought under subsection (a)(1) of this section may elect to exclude from adjudication the portion of the State claim for monetary relief attributable to him by filing notice of such election with the court within such time as specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) The final judgment in an action under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be res judicata as to any claim under section 15 of this title by any person on behalf of whom such action was brought and who fails to give such notice within the period specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. (c) Dismissal or compromise of action An action under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of any proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given in such manner as the court directs. (d) Attorneys' fees In any action under subsection (a) of this section— (1) the amount of the plaintiffs' attorney's fee, if any, shall be determined by the court; and (2) the court may, in its discretion, award a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing defendant upon a finding that the State attorney general has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

Who is an “owner and operator” for purposes of CERCLA liability?

July 25, 2010

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) is a federal statute whose primary purpose is to remedy contamination caused by hazardous substances, by providing for identification of problem sites and applying rigorous cleanup standards.  (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).  CERCLA liability is joint and several, meaning that a responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of a cleanup even where other parties were responsible for the majority of contamination.  CERCLA's liability provisions apply to four categories of persons who are potentially responsible for cleanup costs.  The four categories of persons who may be liable include:

1.      Current site owners and operators of the contaminated site (regardless of whether their activities contributed to the contamination);

2.      Those who owned or operated the contaminated site at the time of the disposal of hazardous substances; 

3.      Those “who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances…”; and

4.      Those who accepted hazardous substances for transportation to the contaminated site.  (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1)-(4)) 

In State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Hearthside Residential Corporation (“Hearthside” opinion available here ), the Defendant real-estate developer  purchased undeveloped wetlands in Huntington Beach, California that it knew were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”).  By 2002 the Defendant had entered into a consent order with the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) to cleanup the wetlands property.  The DTSC also claimed that the PCB contamination had spilled into adjacent residential properties from the wetlands, but the Defendant refused to take any responsibility for the alleged contamination in the adjacent properties.

The wetlands property was cleaned up by the Defendant by December 1, 2005, and that month the Defendant sold the property to the California State Lands Commission.  The adjacent residential properties were cleaned up by the DTSC in 2002 and 2003, and in October 2006 the DTSC filed suit against the Defendant to recover the cost of cleaning up the adjacent residential properties.

The Defendant argued that it was not liable for the cleanup of the adjacent properties because it was not the owner of the offending wetlands at the time the DTSC's lawsuit was filed.  Rather, the Defendant argued that the State Lands Commission, which had bought the wetlands 10 months before the lawsuit was filed, was the responsible party under CERCLA.

An issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit addressed the question of whether current ‘owner and operator' status under CERCLA is determined at the time that cleanup costs are incurred or instead at the time that a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs is filed.  The Court held that for determining CERCLA liability a current owner/operator is determined at the time that cleanup costs are incurred, and not at the time a lawsuit is filed.

The Court noted that its ruling would deter property owners and operators from delaying in cleaning up a property.  If the Court had ruled that an owner/operator was determined at the time a cost recovery lawsuit is filed, then owners would delay cleaning up property until they had found a buyer for their property, as it is unlikely that a cost recovery lawsuit would be filed until after a clean-up was completed, and the costs of cleanup were fixed.  

The Court further noted that its ruling would encourage pre-litigation settlements, as a decision setting owner/operator liability at the time of filing a lawsuit would have required parties to wait until a lawsuit was filed to determine and allocate liability, thereby discouraging pre-litigation settlements.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Hearthside not only provides additional clarity to the complicated CERCLA liability scheme, the Court's decision continues a long line of CERCLA cases that emphasize the need to interpret CERCLA in a manner that leads to expedited contamination remediation.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Limits to CERCLA'S Owner/Operator Liability

By James A. Vroman

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has ruled that a party cannot be liable under CERCLA as an "owner/operator" for the remediation of impacted soil and water if the impacted soil and water is not located within the party's facility, and is entirely outside of the property limits of the party's facility, even though the contaminants that impacted the soil and groundwater may have originated at the party's facility and migrated off-site to impact down gradient locations. See , United States v. Washington State Dept. of Transportation , Case NO. 08-5722RJB.

The United States brought a CERCLA action against the Washington State Department of Transportation (the "DOT") contending that coal tar from the DOT's Tacoma Spur Property had migrated and contaminated the Thea Foss and Wheeler Osgood Waterways (the "Waterways").  The United States sough to impose CERCLA liability on the DOT as an owner/operator and compel the DOT to remediate the Waterways.  Although the DOT did not own or operate the Waterways, the Tacoma Spur Property and the Waterways were both located within the large Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tidelands Superfund Site.  The United States contended that the entire Superfund Site was one "facility" and, therefore, the DOT was an "owner" of the "facility," as that term is defined in CERCLA.

The Court disagreed with this contention.  It found that the Superfund Site was comprised of a number of different properties each with a different owner.  The different owners had no common purpose and did not conduct common activities on their properties.  Therefore, the Court could not accept the United States' argument that the entire Site was one facility.  Moreover, the Court concluded that the Waterways and the Tacoma Spur Property "are reasonably divided into multiple parts or functional units."  Accordingly, the Court found that they were separate "facilities" under CERCLA and the DOT was not the owner/operator of the Waterways facility and could not be liable under CERCLA for the remediation of the Waterways as an "owner/operator" Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP"), even if the coal tar impacting the Waterways had migrated from the Tacoma Spur Property. 

The Federal Court System, The “Exceptions Clause”, & The 14th Amendment

By: Publius Huldah

How Federal Judges Violate Our Constitution

1. Read Article III, US Constitution. Article III establishes the federal courts (the 3rd branch of the federal government). Section 2 enumerates the categories of cases which federal courts are allowed to hear. Section 2 also distributes the “judicial power” (the authority to hear cases) between the supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

Article I, Sec. 8, clause 9, authorizes Congress to create courts inferior to the supreme Court. Accordingly, Congress has set up some 94 federal district courts and 13 circuit courts of appeal (11 numbered circuits plus the DC Circuit & the Federal Circuit). This Chart shows the territorial jurisdiction of the 11 numbered circuit courts. Federal district courts are scattered throughout these united States. Click on your circuit to find the locations of the federal district courts in your State.

Most federal cases are tried in the district courts. The loser may appeal to the circuit court of appeal for that district. The supreme Court hears some appeals from the circuit courts of appeal.

2. But in TWO of the categories of cases enumerated in Art. III, Sec. 2, the Constitution grants “original” [i.e., “trial”] jurisdiction to the supreme Court: (1) All cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; and (2) Those in which a State is a Party. For these TWO categories of cases, the supreme Court acts as the trial court.

In all the other enumerated categories of cases, “…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

What does the quoted phrase (the so-called “exceptions clause”) mean?

a) Alex Glashausser of Washburn University School of Law, says the phrase means that Congress may extend the supreme Court's “original” (trial) jurisdiction to include more cases than just (1) Those affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls, and (2) Those in which a State is a Party. Glashausser's view is COMPLETELY WRONG & UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Congress may not unilaterally amend the Constitution by expanding the supreme Court's “original” jurisdiction!

b) Some conservatives, such as David Barton of Wallbuilders, say the phrase means that Congress may withdraw from the federal courts authority to hear certain types of cases. That is also incorrect. It is true that the federal courts have been hearing cases which they are not authorized by Art. III, Sec. 2, to hear; but the remedy for that is impeachment & removal of the usurping judges. The “exceptions clause” does not permit Congress to diminish the enumerated powers of the federal courts!

c) Alexander Hamilton explains the original meaning of the phrase in Federalist No. 81. When we have sworn to support the Constitution, then we must defend it or we violate our Oaths. If we reject the original intent of the Constitution - the meaning it was understood to have when it was ratified - then we don't have a Constitution. All we have is a pack of judges, law professors & others running around spewing out their own personal evolving opinions as to what they think provisions in Our Constitution mean. But that is the rule of men - and they want to be “the men” making the rules.

3. Let us examine these views:

a) As to Professor Glashausser: The Constitution dictates the categories of cases for which the supreme Court has “original” (trial) jurisdiction, and the categories for which it has appellate jurisdiction! Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 81:

“…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…” (at para 13) [boldface added, caps in original]
“…Let us resume the train of our observations. We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ‘with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.' “(at para 15) [boldface added, caps in original]
Congress may not unilaterally amend the Constitution by adding categories of cases for which the supreme Court will have “original” jurisdiction! Someone, please! Send Professor Glashausser a copy of The Federalist Papers! He is teaching our future lawyers & judges!

b) As to David Barton: The Constitution lists the categories of cases which federal courts may hear. In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains each category of case. ANY RESTRICTIONS OR EXPANSIONS OF THAT LIST CAN ONLY BE DONE BY AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION! Look at the Eleventh Amendment (ratified 1795). It withdrew from federal courts the power to hear a certain category of case. So! Congress may NOT make a law diminishing the constitutionally granted powers of the federal courts.

Now, listen up: It is true that federal judges have long been hearing cases which they have no constitutional authority to hear. Such judicial usurpation is explained in a previous paper: What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts? But the best remedy for federal judges hearing cases which they have no constitutional authority to hear is to impeach them & remove them from the bench (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

What are some cases which federal judges have been hearing which they have no constitutional authority to hear? For starters, they have no constitutional authority to hear cases seeking to overturn State laws criminalizing abortion & sodomy. Those cases do not fall within any of the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2. Judges on the supreme Court know they have no constitutional authority to hear such cases! So! This is what they did to get around Our Constitution:

Article III, Sec. 2 permits federal courts to hear [among other enumerated categories] “all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”. So! In order to claim authority to hear cases seeking to overturn State laws criminalizing abortion and sodomy, federal judges looked at the word, “liberty” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and found hiding under that word a constitutional right to kill babies and another constitutional right to engage in sodomy! They fabricated “constitutional rights” so that they could then overturn State laws criminalizing those practices. Once baby-killing & sodomy were elevated to the status of “constitutional rights”, they then could be said to “arise under this Constitution”. Do you see? And we have to stand up when these people walk into a room!

The federal courts also have no constitutional authority to hear cases involving prayer in public places throughout the States. The 1st Amendment restricts only the powers of CONGRESS. We The People may do whatever We like respecting prayer in public places, and the federal courts have no authority whatsoever to interfere. How the supreme Court usurped power to ban religious speech in Our Country is explained in The TRUTH about “Separation of Church and State”. Does the Supreme Court have constitutional authority to ban religion from the public square?

As stated above, the proper remedy for judicial usurpations is to impeach & remove federal judges who demonstrate such contempt for Our Constitution. Others might say that Congress could make a law, perhaps under the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause), specifying that federal courts may NOT hear cases involving abortion, sodomy, prayer at high school football games, etc. But what would be the result? One possibility is that federal judges would see the list as a blank check to hear every case which was not listed. So Congress would need to keep amending the law to add new categories of off-limits cases. Or, perhaps the federal judges would do as they have done with Our Constitution: just ignore the list altogether.
4. So, then, what does the following phrase at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, actually mean?

“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Hamilton tells us (in his usual exhaustive detail) in the last five paragraphs of Federalist No. 81. The quoted phrase merely addresses technical issues respecting the mode of doing appeals: Will the appeal be heard by a jury, or by judges? Will the appellate court be able to revisit matters of Fact, or will it be restricted to reviewing rulings on matters of Law? Will the mode of doing appeals be the same for cases involving the “common law” and the “civil law”, or will it be different for each? Congress will decide. That's it, Folks!

5. What should you learn from this paper?
a) When you hear people talking about The Constitution, don't believe a word they say. They are usually wrong. That includes the lawyers, judges & law professors who spout off on TV. (Remember, they were educated by people like Professor Glashausser!) So, you must look it up yourself in The Federalist Papers. Mary E. Webster makes it easy. She has “translated” The Federalist Papers into modern English. They are now easy to understand. YOU can learn the “original intent” of every clause in Our Constitution! Then YOU can educate everyone within your spheres of influence. (You will also amaze your friends and confuse & confound our enemies.)

b) We need to radically change the way we have been looking at the World. There really is an objective Reality out there: Some things are True, other things are False. Some things are Good, other things are Evil. We need to start paying attention to objective standards again. We need to embrace the Good, the Noble, and the Intelligent. We need to reject the Bad, the Low, and the Stupid. The Constitution has an objective meaning. That meaning is revealed in The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence, Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, and (for word meanings) an old American Dictionary. THAT is where we look to find the original intent of Our Constitution. We must NOT look to the federal judges. A pox on them and their precious & perverted precedents!

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Anti-Federalist Nightmare

During the debates over the US Constitution, those who wrote for the adoption of the Constitution produced a brilliant series of pamphlets extolling the virtues of the Constitution. These were known as the Federalist Papers.

Lesser known though were the writings by those opposed to the new Constitution. In these pamphlets the writers expressed their fears over shortcomings in how the Constitution was written. These were known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Today we are living in the nightmare scenario that the Anti-Federalists warned us about -- the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the subsequent bypassing or outright ignoring of the limits on power mandated in the Constitution.

Time is running our for the economy

Today most Americans are completely obsessed with the silliest of things. They wonder how Lindsay Lohan is going to fare in jail and they agonize over who LeBron James is going to play basketball for. But when it comes to the things that really matter, most Americans are completely clueless. For example, while most Americans would agree that we are experiencing difficult economic times right now, most of them would also argue that our economic system is in fundamentally good shape and that things will get back to "normal" at some point. Those of us who are trying to warn America of the impending economic nightmare are dismissed as "doom and gloomers" and "conspiracy theorists". But of course, as with so many things, the passage of time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Below there is a chart that I want all of you to burn into your memory. It is a chart of total U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP from 1870 until 2009. This chart clearly and succinctly communicates the horror of the debt bubble that we are currently dealing with. When this debt bubble pops, it is going to make the Great Depression look like a Sunday picnic.
As you can see from the chart below, the total of all debt (government, business and consumer) is now somewhere in the neighborhood of 360 percent of GDP. Never before has the United States faced a debt bubble of this magnitude....

Most of us were not alive during the Great Depression, but those who were remember how incredibly painful it was for America to deleverage and bring the economic system back into some type of balance.
So if our current debt bubble is far worse, what kind of economic horror is ahead for us?
The truth is that we are facing some circumstances that even the folks back during the Great Depression did not have to deal with....
1 - Back in the 1930s, tens of millions of Americans lived on farms or knew how to grow their own food. Today the vast majority of Americans are totally dependent on the system for even their most basic needs.
2 - A vast horde of Baby Boomers is expecting to retire, and the "Social Security trust fund" has nothing but 2.5 trillion dollars of government IOUs in it. According to an official U.S. government report , rapidly growing interest costs on the U.S. national debt together with spending on major entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare will absorb approximately 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue by the year 2019. This is a financial tsunami the likes of which Americans back in the 1930s could never have even dreamed of.
3 - American workers never had to compete for jobs with workers on the other side of the world back in the 1930s. But today, millions upon millions of our jobs have been "outsourced" to China, India and a vast array of third world nations where desperate workers are more than happy to slave away for big global corporations for less than a dollar an hour. How in the world are American workers supposed to compete with that?
4 - Back in the 1930s, there was nothing like the gigantic derivatives bubble that hangs over us today. The total value of all derivatives worldwide is estimated to be somewhere between 600 trillion and 1.5 quadrillion dollars. The danger that we face from derivatives is so great that Warren Buffet has called them "financial weapons of mass destruction" . When this bubble pops there won't be enough money in the entire world to fix it.
5 - During the Great Depression, the United States economy was relatively self-contained. But today we truly do live in a global economy. Unfortunately that means that a severe economic crisis in one part of the world is going to affect us as well. Right now, the United States is far from alone in dealing with a massive debt crisis. Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Portugal and a number of other European nations are in real danger of actually defaulting on their debts . Japan (the third biggest economy in the world) is on the verge of complete and total economic collapse . So what happens to the U.S. economy when the dominoes start to fall?
The truth is that by almost any measure, we are in worse economic condition than we were right before the beginning of the Great Depression. We have been living way beyond our means and the debts we have been piling up are clearly not anywhere close to sustainable.
Did you think that we could just continue to run deficits equal to 10 percent of GDP forever?
Of course not.
The U.S. economy is being driven off a cliff, but America's "ruling class" has insisted all along that they know better than we do .
But the truth is that in the final analysis it is not us that they care about.
What they do actually care about is getting more money and more power for themselves and for other members of the ruling class. Today, 10,000 people make 30% of the total income in the United States each year.
That leaves 70% of the pie for the remaining 99.99% of us to divide up.
The reality is that however you want to slice it, the U.S. economic system is broken. However, considering the fact that America's ruling class has a stranglehold on both major political parties, we are not likely to see any fundamental changes any time soon.
That is very unfortunate, because time is running out on the U.S. economy.

July 23, 2010 – Federalist Paper No. 63 – Janine Turner

Howdy from Texas. I thank you for joining us today and I thank our friend, Professor Morrisey, for his wonderfully insightful essay.

Responsibility. Reasonable Responsibility. These were and are the qualities needed in the Senate. These were and are the qualities needed in the American public. We, the “genius of the people,” hold in our hands the direction of our country and we either fail, or do this well, depending on our level of responsibility.

Our representatives have responsibilities but so do we.

Educating ourselves on the Constitution and the engine of our government, seeking to understand the issues of the day and future, inspiring family, friends and children to be active patriots, being vocal and voting – these are the responsibilities of the people of a Republic.

I am encouraged because there appears to be an awakening and we, the citizens of America, are getting more involved in the affairs of our government – governing through our informed choices. This is rather vital as it is, “we the people,” who govern. The Congress is a reflection of our voice, our vote. We must take responsibility for it.

In America we are still are able to do just this – take responsibility for our government. We want to keep it that way.

Publius felt that it was important that the people's passions were kept in check by the cool meditations of the Senate – a check. This was also a check against tyranny.

“Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny.”

James Madison talks about the vulnerabilities that Senates had faced throughout history – the vulnerability of being taken over by the people's branch. One such example was from the British.

“The British history informs us that this hereditary assembly has not been able to defend itself against the continual encroachments of the House of Representatives; and that it no sooner lost the support of the monarch, than it was actually crushed by the weight of the popular branch.”

James Madison, ever ready with an historical reference or two, mentioned past Republican examples: Sparta, Rome and Cathage.

“As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject, its examples support the reasoning which we have employed. In Sparta, the Ephori, the annual representatives of the people, were found an overmatch for the senate for life, continually gained on its authority and finally drew all power into their own hands. The Tribunes of Rome, who were the representatives of the people, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free government, which has the people on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.”

All I want to know is – what happened in 1913? How was the 17 th Amendment allowed to happen?

James Madison seemed to believe that if an usurpation ever were to happen, it would be restored by the people.

“We are warranted in believing, that if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles.”

James Madison is referring to the Senate becoming an aristocratic or independent body. Yet, is not the usurpation of the Senate by the 17 th Amendment, (foregoing the states), not an equal violation of our founding father's intended balance of powers? Is it not reminiscent of James Madison's British, Sparta, Rome and Cathage examples?

Are we able to bring back the Constitution to its “primitive form and principles?”

Caution must be taken in regard to the new movement to do away with the Electoral College. There is a movement to do this through state legislatures. Only an informed and “responsible”  people can prevent this from happening.

We must pay heed and take action so our posterity does not say, “What Happened in 2012 or 2014? How was the removal of the Electoral College allowed to happen?”

God Bless, Janine Turner

§ 300.400 General.
(a) This subpart establishes methods and criteria
for determining the appropriate extent of response
authorized by CERCLA and CWA section 311(c):
(1) When there is a release of a hazardous substance
into the environment; or
(2) When there is a release into the environment
of any pollutant or contaminant that may present
an imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or welfare of the United States.
(b) Limitations on response. Unless the lead
agency determines that a release constitutes a public
health or environmental emergency and no
other person with the authority and capability to
respond will do so in a timely manner, a removal
or remedial action under section 104 of CERCLA
shall not be undertaken in response to a release:
(1) Of a naturally occurring substance in its
unaltered form, or altered solely through naturally
occurring processes or phenomena, from a location
where it is naturally found;

§ 300.400
(2) From products that are part of the structure
of, and result in exposure within, residential buildings
or business or community structures; or
(3) Into public or private drinking water supplies
due to deterioration of the system through ordinary
use.
(c) Fund-financed action. In determining the
need for and in planning or undertaking Fund-financed
action, the lead agency shall, to the extent
practicable:
(1) Engage in prompt response;
(2) Provide for state participation in response
actions, as described in subpart F of this part;
(3) Conserve Fund monies by encouraging private
party response;
(4) Be sensitive to local community concerns;
(5) Consider using treatment technologies;
(6) Involve the Regional Response Team (RRT)
in both removal and remedial response actions at
appropriate decision-making stages;
(7) Encourage the involvement and sharing of
technology by industry and other experts; and
(8) Encourage the involvement of organizations
to coordinate responsible party actions, foster site
response, and provide technical advice to the public,
federal and state governments, and industry.
(d) Entry and access. (1) For purposes of determining
the need for response, or choosing or taking
a response action, or otherwise enforcing the
provisions of CERCLA, EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement under CERCLA section 104(d)(1), has
the authority to enter any vessel, facility, establishment
or other place, property, or location described
in paragraph (d)(2) of this section and conduct,
complete, operate, and maintain any response
actions authorized by CERCLA or these regulations.
(2)(i) Under the authorities described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement under CERCLA section
104(d)(1), may enter:
(A) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place or property where any hazardous substance
or pollutant or contaminant may be or has been
generated, stored, treated, disposed of, or transported
from;
(B) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place or property from which, or to which, a hazardous
substance or pollutant or contaminant has
been, or may have been, released or where such
release is or may be threatened;
(C) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place or property where entry is necessary to determine
the need for response or the appropriate
response or to effectuate a response action; or

(D) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place, property, or location adjacent to those vessels,
facilities, establishments, places, or properties
described in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of
this section.
(ii) Once a determination has been made that
there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has
been or may be a release, EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement under CERCLA section 104(d)(1), is
authorized to enter all vessels, facilities, establishments,
places, properties, or locations specified in
paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, at which the release
is believed to be, and all other vessels, facilities,
establishments, places, properties, or locations
identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section that
are related to the response or are necessary to
enter in responding to that release.
(3) The lead agency may designate as its representative
solely for the purpose of access, among
others, one or more potentially responsible parties,
including representatives, employees, agents, and
contractors of such parties. EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, may exercise the authority
contained in section 104(e) of CERCLA to obtain
access for its designated representative. A potentially
responsible party may only be designated as
a representative of the lead agency where that potentially
responsible party has agreed to conduct
response activities pursuant to an administrative
order or consent decree.
(4)(i) If consent is not granted under the authorities
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
or if consent is conditioned in any manner,
EPA, or the appropriate federal agency, may issue
an order pursuant to section 104(e)(5) of CERCLA
directing compliance with the request for access
made under § 300.400(d)(1). EPA or the appropriate
federal agency may ask the Attorney General
to commence a civil action to compel compliance
with either a request for access or an order
directing compliance.
(ii) EPA reserves the right to proceed, where
appropriate, under applicable authority other than
CERCLA section 104(e).
(iii) The administrative order may direct compliance
with a request to enter or inspect any vessel,
facility, establishment, place, property, or location
described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(iv) Each order shall contain:
(A) A determination by EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, that it is reasonable to believe that
there may be or has been a release or threat of a
release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or
contaminant and a statement of the facts upon
which the determination is based;
(B) A description, in light of CERCLA response
authorities, of the purpose and estimated scope and

duration of the entry, including a description of
the specific anticipated activities to be conducted
pursuant to the order;
(C) A provision advising the person who failed
to consent that an officer or employee of the agency
that issued the order will be available to confer
with respondent prior to effective date of the
order; and
(D) A provision advising the person who failed
to consent that a court may impose a penalty of
up to $25,000 per day for unreasonable failure to
comply with the order.
(v) Orders shall be served upon the person or
responsible party who failed to consent prior to
their effective date. Force shall not be used to
compel compliance with an order.
(vi) Orders may not be issued for any criminal
investigations.
(e) Permit requirements. (1) No federal, state, or
local permits are required for on-site response actions
conducted pursuant to CERCLA sections
104, 106, 120, 121, or 122. The term on-site
means the areal extent of contamination and all
suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination
necessary for implementation of the response
action.
(2) Permits, if required, shall be obtained for all
response activities conducted off-site.
(f) Health assessments. Health assessments shall
be performed by ATSDR at facilities on or proposed
to be listed on the NPL and may be performed
at other releases or facilities in response to
petitions made to ATSDR. Where available, these
health assessments may be used by the lead agency
to assist in determining whether response actions
should be taken and/or to identify the need
for additional studies to assist in the assessment of
potential human health effects associated with releases
or potential releases of hazardous substances.
(g) Identification of applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements. (1) The lead and support
agencies shall identify requirements applicable
to the release or remedial action contemplated
based upon an objective determination of whether
the requirement specifically addresses a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance found at a
CERCLA site.
(2) If, based upon paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
it is determined that a requirement is not applicable
to a specific release, the requirement may
still be relevant and appropriate to the circumstances
of the release. In evaluating relevance
and appropriateness, the factors in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section shall be examined,
where pertinent, to determine whether a
requirement addresses problems or situations sufficiently
similar to the circumstances of the release

or remedial action contemplated, and whether the
requirement is well-suited to the site, and therefore
is both relevant and appropriate. The pertinence of
each of the following factors will depend, in part,
on whether a requirement addresses a chemical,
location, or action. The following comparisons
shall be made, where pertinent, to determine relevance
and appropriateness:
(i) The purpose of the requirement and the purpose
of the CERCLA action;
(ii) The medium regulated or affected by the requirement
and the medium contaminated or affected
at the CERCLA site;
(iii) The substances regulated by the requirement
and the substances found at the CERCLA
site;
(iv) The actions or activities regulated by the requirement
and the remedial action contemplated at
the CERCLA site;
(v) Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of
the requirement and their availability for the circumstances
at the CERCLA site;
(vi) The type of place regulated and the type of
place affected by the release or CERCLA action;
(vii) The type and size of structure or facility
regulated and the type and size of structure or facility
affected by the release or contemplated by
the CERCLA action;
(viii) Any consideration of use or potential use
of affected resources in the requirement and the
use or potential use of the affected resource at the
CERCLA site.
(3) In addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, the lead and support agencies
may, as appropriate, identify other advisories,
criteria, or guidance to be considered for a particular
release. The ‘‘to be considered’’ (TBC) category
consists of advisories, criteria, or guidance
that were developed by EPA, other federal agencies,
or states that may be useful in developing
CERCLA remedies.
(4) Only those state standards that are promulgated,
are identified by the state in a timely manner,
and are more stringent than federal requirements
may be applicable or relevant and appropriate.
For purposes of identification and notification
of promulgated state standards, the term promulgated
means that the standards are of general
applicability and are legally enforceable.
(5) The lead agency and support agency shall
identify their specific requirements that are applicable
or relevant and appropriate for a particular
site. These agencies shall notify each other, in a
timely manner as described in § 300.515(d), of the
requirements they have determined to be applicable
or relevant and appropriate. When identifying
a requirement as an ARAR, the lead agency and

statute or regulation from which the requirement is
derived.
(6) Notification of ARARs shall be according to
procedures and timeframes specified in § 300.515
(d)(2) and (h)(2).
(h) Oversight. The lead agency may provide
oversight for actions taken by potentially responsible
parties to ensure that a response is conducted
consistent with this part. The lead agency may
also monitor the actions of third parties
preauthorized under subpart H of this part. EPA
will provide oversight when the response is pursuant
to an EPA order or federal consent decree.
(i) Other. (1) This subpart does not establish
any preconditions to enforcement action by either
the federal or state governments to compel response
actions by potentially responsible parties.
(2) While much of this subpart is oriented toward
federally funded response actions, this subpart
may be used as guidance concerning methods
and criteria for response actions by other parties
under other funding mechanisms. Except as provided
in subpart H of this part, nothing in this part
is intended to limit the rights of any person to
seek recovery of response costs from responsible
parties pursuant to CERCLA section 107.
(3) Activities by the federal and state governments
in implementing this subpart are discretionary
governmental functions. This subpart does
not create in any private party a right to federal
response or enforcement action. This subpart does
not create any duty of the federal government to
take any response action at any particular time.
[55 FR 8839, Mar. 8, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 47447,
Sept. 15, 1994]

Senators Say EPA Dust Regulation Proposals Defy Common Sense
07/25/2010
NAFB News Service

  A group of Senators led by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson Friday calling on her to use common sense on future dust regulations and reminding her of the Administration's focus on rural America and the negative impact the regulations could have on Main Street. The Senators say the second draft recently released would establish the most stringent and unparalleled dust regulation in U.S. history if approved. Though they respect the efforts for a clean and healthy environment – the Senators say that shouldn't come at the expense of common sense.

The letter states the EPA's identified levels for particulate matter will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. The Senators point out dust is a naturally occurring event - whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall or driving a car down the gravel road. Producers could potentially be fined for not meeting the particulate matter standards while still practicing good management practices on their soils - according to the Senators. If the rule is published - they say economic development could slow down and significant costs to farmers and businesses could be imposed. Grassley says he is greatly concerned that this puts the U.S. one step closer to imposing more regulations on farmers.

Debunking the Constitutional Accountability Center

By: LC,

25 Jul 2010

Claim:

“Far from being ‘very afraid' of federal government, the Founders were quite concerned with protecting the United States from invading foreign armies and trusted the federal government to protect the citizenry against the evils of ‘factions,' as famously elaborated by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10” (p. 4)

In other words, the CAC is, among other things, suggesting that in Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison suggested that the federal government would protect the citizenry from the evils of factions.

Counter-Claim:

First, in Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison explains what a faction is in the following way:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

According to the definition that Madison sets out, the federal government itself could be a faction. Therefore, it is nonsensical to suggest that the federal government was the go-to entity to protect citizens against the evils of factions since it could be the entity producing those very evils.

Second, the ways that Madison actually proposed to fight the evils of factions are the following:

Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.

To guard against the same passion or interest in a majority at the same, the nation must have a large enough citizenry such that its members and its members' views become heterogeneous. To guard against a majority that does have a co-existent passion, the nation must have a large enough territory such that they will be spread out and unable to act in concert. These are the lessons from Madison and Federalist No. 10 on how to combat the evils of faction; the answer is clearly not to rely on the federal government, which could very well be a faction itself.

Boxer, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Protect Clean-Energy Initiatives  

Bill Would Resolve Issues Surrounding Property Assessed Clean Energy Program

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Begich (D-AK) today introduced legislation that would protect clean-energy initiatives in California and across the country that are financed through the Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, program.

Senator Boxer said, “The current uncertainty surrounding PACE programs is jeopardizing $110 million in federal investments for California communities, which is simply unacceptable. We must take action to protect these initiatives because they create jobs, save homeowners money on their energy bills and help our environment.”

Senator Merkley said, “Innovative financing programs like PACE are simultaneously supporting a growing clean energy sector, creating jobs and putting more money in the pockets of families and businesses – it's a job creation trifecta. Innovative energy financing has been a key driver in making Oregon a leader in the clean energy sector and it is crucial that we protect important programs like PACE which help our economy and create jobs.”

Senator Gillibrand said, “Communities in New York and around the country have taken important steps to improve energy efficiency and create good-paying jobs. This important legislation supports these efforts, eliminating some of the obstacles that have been put in place and enabling more communities to keep moving on energy efficiency and green job programs.”

Senator Begich said, “In many cases, the biggest barrier for homeowners and small businesses who want to make energy efficiency improvements is financing those projects. This bill removes a bureaucratic roadblock and allows local communities to assist homeowners and businesses if they want to. It's another tool in the box that would help Alaskans save on their energy bills.”

PACE financing is an innovative way to create jobs, reduce consumer energy bills and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly half of California's 58 counties, as well as individual cities, have developed PACE programs or plan to start one.

PACE programs allow homeowners and business owners to pay for energy-efficient property upgrades through a property tax assessment that is repaid over a number of years.

Earlier this month, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, effectively halted PACE programs nationwide by claiming that PACE assessments violate securities agreements by imposing a first lien, ahead of the lenders, on participating properties. The FHFA ordered Fannie and Freddie to take additional actions to limit the use of PACE programs in connection with their home mortgages. This action has prevented California communities from using $110 million in Economic Recovery Act grants intended for PACE programs.

This measure would require lenders to adopt new, sound underwriting standards that support PACE financing programs, rather than stymie them. It would treat PACE assessments the same as other property tax assessments and respect states' authority to secure such assessments with a first lien.

It is the companion legislation to a measure recently introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) and more than 20 other members of Congress.

The New-York Journal, November 22, 1787

To the Citizens of the State of New York.
In my last number I endeavored to prove that the language of the article relative to the establishment of the executive of this new government was vague and inexplicit, that the great powers of the President, connected with his duration in office would lead to oppression and ruin. That he would be governed by favorites and flatterers, or that a dangerous council would be collected from the great officers of state, -- that the ten miles square [District of Columbia], if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious, and that the court would possess a language and manners different from yours; that a vice president is as unnecessary, as he is dangerous in his influence -- that the president cannot represent you because he is not of your own immediate choice, that if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and odious aristocracy or monarchy the that the president possessed of the power, given him by this frame of government differs but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain, and I warned you to beware of the fallacious resemblance that is held out to you by the advocates of this new system between it and your own state governments.

George Clinton , first Governor of New York and fourth Vice President under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, was among those anti-federalists arguing for stricter restraints on the government than those proposed during the Constitutional Convention.  There is some dispute, but Clinton is generally regarded as the author using the pseudonym of “Cato” when writing to the New-York Journal outlining his case against sections of the proposed Constitution as written.

Obama's Remarks at the Signing Ceremony

Following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks at the bill-signing on Wednesday to overhaul federal financial regulation, as released by the White House:

Good morning, everyone. We're gathered in the heart of our nation's capital, surrounded by memorials to leaders and citizens who served our nation in its earliest days, and in its days of greatest trial.

Today is such time for America. Over the past two years, we have faced the worst recession since the Great Depression. 8 million people lost their jobs. Tens of millions saw the value of their homes and retirement savings plummet. Countless businesses have been unable to get the loans they need and many have been forced to shut their doors. And although the economy is growing again, too many people are still feeling the pain of the downturn.

While a number of factors led to such a severe recession, the primary cause was a breakdown in our financial system. It was a crisis born of a failure of responsibility from certain corners of Wall Street to the halls of power in Washington. For years, our financial sector was governed by antiquated and poorly enforced rules that allowed some to game the system and take risks that endangered the entire economy.

Unscrupulous lenders locked consumers into complex loans with hidden costs. Firms like AIG placed massive, risky bets with borrowed money. And while the rules left abuse and excess unchecked, they left taxpayers on the hook if a big bank or financial institution ever failed.

Even before the crisis hit, I went to Wall Street and called for common-sense reforms to protect consumers and our economy as a whole. And soon after taking office, I proposed a set of reforms to empower consumers and investors, to bring the shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day, and to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all. Today, those reforms will become the law of the land.

For the last year, Chairmen Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have worked day and night to bring about reform. I'm profoundly grateful to them. I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their leadership. Passing this bill was no easy task. To get there, we had to overcome the furious lobbying of an array of powerful interest groups, and a partisan minority determined to block change. The Members here today, both on stage and in the audience, have done a great service in devoting so much time and expertise to this effort. I also want to thank the three Republican Senators who put partisanship aside, judged this bill on the merits, and voted for reform.

The fact is, the financial industry is central to our nation's ability to grow, prosper, compete, and innovate. There are a lot of banks that understand and fulfill this vital role, and a lot of bankers who want to do right by their customers. Well, this reform will help foster innovation, not hamper it. It is designed to make sure that everyone follows the same set of rules, so that firms compete on price and quality, not tricks and traps. It demands accountability and responsibility from everyone. It provides certainty to everybody from bankers to farmers to business owners. And unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear from this reform.

Now, for all those Americans who are wondering what Wall Street Reform means for you, here's what you can expect. If you've ever applied for a credit card, a student loan, or a mortgage, you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print.

But what often happens as a result, is that many Americans are caught by hidden fees and penalties, or saddled with loans they can't afford. That's what happened to Robin Fox, hit with a massive rate increase on her credit card balance even though she paid her bills on time. That's what happened to Andrew Giordano, who discovered hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his bank statement – fees he had no idea he might face. Both are here today.

Well, with this law, unfair rate hikes, like the one that hit Robin, will end for good. And we'll ensure that people like Andrew aren't unwittingly caught by overdraft fees when they sign up for a checking account.

With this law, we'll crack down on abusive practices in the mortgage industry. We'll make sure that contracts are simpler – putting an end to many hidden penalties and fees in complex mortgages – so folks know what they're signing. With this law, students who take out college loans will be provided clear and concise information about their obligations.

And with this law, ordinary investors – like seniors and folks saving for retirement – will be able to receive more information about the costs and risks of mutual funds and other investment products, so that they can better make financial decisions that work for them.

All told, these reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history. And these protections will be enforced by a new consumer watchdog with just one job: looking out for people – not big banks, not lenders, not investment houses – in the financial system.

Now, that's not just good for consumers; that's good for the economy. Because reform will put a stop to a lot of the bad loans that fueled a debt-based bubble. And it will mean all companies will have to seek customers by offering better products, instead of more deceptive ones.

Beyond the consumer protections I've outlined, reform will also rein in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. It will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex, risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis. And shareholders will also have a greater say on the pay of CEOs and other executives, so that they can reward success instead of failure.

Finally, because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period. If a large financial institution should ever fail, this reform gives us the ability to wind it down without endangering the broader economy. And there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is "too big to fail," so that we don't have another AIG.

So this is what reform will mean. But it doesn't mean our work is over. For these new rules to be effective, regulators will have to be vigilant. We also may need to make adjustments along the way as our financial system adapts to these changes. And no law can force anybody to be responsible; it is still incumbent on those on Wall Street to heed the lessons of this crisis in how they conduct business.

The fact is, every American – from Main Street to Wall Street – has a stake in our financial system. Wall Street banks and firms invest the capital that makes it possible for start-ups to sell new products; they provide loans to businesses to expand and hire; they back mortgages for families purchasing a new home. That's why we all stand to gain from these reforms. We all win when investors around the world have confidence in our markets. We all win when shareholders have more power and information. We all win when consumers are protected against abuse. And we all win when folks are rewarded based on how well they perform, not how well they evade accountability.

In the end, our financial system only works – our markets are only free – when there are clear rules and basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that is what these reforms are designed to achieve: no more, no less. Because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions – that it works for all of us.

This is the central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. Ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or fall together as one nation. So these reforms will help lift our economy and lead all of us to a stronger, more prosperous future, and I am honored to sign them into law.

The Government Will Not Resolve AIG

Jul 22 2010, 11:58 AM ET |

Now that the President has signed financial reform, speculation has begun on when it will first use its biggest new tool: the non-bank resolution authority. If the ability to wind down big failing firms was available to the government back in 2008, at least a few big ones would likely have been resolved. One obvious choice would have been AIG. Today, the New York Times' Deal Professor Steven Davidoff wonders if it might now wind down AIG, since it can. This doesn't seem likely.

Before getting into how resolution would work, Davidoff notes, a systemically relevant firm can only be resolved if it's insolvent. In particular, here's what the Dodd-Frank bill says:

(iii) DETERMINATION.--On a strictly confidential basis, and without any prior public disclosure, the Court, after notice to the covered financial company and a hearing in which the covered financial company may oppose the petition, shall determine whether the determination of the Secretary that the covered financial company is in default or in danger of default and satisfies the definition of a financial company under section 201(a)(11) is arbitrary and capricious.

So in this case, AIG must be determined to be in default or in danger of default. Is it? Davidoff thinks it might be:

Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Oversight Panel have stressed that it is very unclear what exactly A.I.G. is worth, and it may be the case that A.I.G.'s assets are less than what the company owes the United States government for billions of dollars in bailouts. But this is a moving figure and the stock market currently assigns A.I.G.'s equity billions of dollars in value, mitigating against these assessments.

Whether or not AIG is truly insolvent is a question that must be answered by more than just numbers. It's largely believed that the government doesn't really expect, and might not demand, it get back all of the money it used to bail out AIG. So is this debt real debt? It's hard to tell since it isn't your typical private sector-owned obligation. Because the private sector isn't on the hook for much of its debt, AIG's insolvency might not satisfy the spirit when resolution is necessary.

Davidoff also outlines three other strong arguments for why it's unlikely that the U.S. would want to resolve AIG, even if it could. They boil down to spooking the financial markets, possibly earning a worse return for taxpayers than if it was allowed to stay in business, and the political ramifications that the Obama administration will face for taking over a private firm. Taking this extreme action would be a huge deal.

For all of these reasons, it's pretty unlikely that the AIG will be wound down through the resolution authority, unless its assets experience significant further deterioration. But over the next few years, if the firm's insolvency becomes more obvious, then resolution might still be unlikely. As the firm declines in size, it becomes less systemically vital. Thus, a regular bankruptcy court may soon be able to simply wind it down the old-fashioned way. Of course, survival also remains a possibility.

Citigroup, JPMorgan Said to Have Sold AIG Protection to Goldman

(Source: Mail Tribune) By Paul Fattig, Mail Tribune, Medford, Ore.

July 25--The cost of the Blue Ledge project is more than the entire U.S. Forest Service's annual national budget for cleaning up abandoned mine sites, says project administrator Pete Jones.

However, the bulk of the $11.1 million is coming from federal stimulus funds with the rest -- $1.3 million -- being contributed by American Smelting and Refining Corp., which owned the smelter in Tacoma, Wash., where the estimated 11,150 tons of ore were shipped, he said.

The mine has been owned, leased or operated by at least 14 different parties over the years. It is currently owned by a trust based in Salem that is working closely with the agencies involved in the clean-up project, Jones said.

The mine went into production around 1900, followed by full production during World War I, a time when copper demand was high. There also was a resurgence of mining activity on the mountain in the 1920s, '30s and '40s.

For years, the tailings have been leaching toxic materials in violation of the Clean Water Act, severely impacting the aquatic biology of Joe Creek, Jones said.

Some three miles downstream from the mine is the remote community of Joe Bar, a historic hamlet of half a dozen homes near where Joe Creek flows into Elliott Creek.

The stream sediment and fish will be tested all the way downstream from the mine to Applegate Reservoir a half dozen miles distant to see how far the toxins have migrated, he said. An estimated 20,000 tons of the tailings have gone downstream, he noted.

Plans call for the contaminated tailings at the mine to be removed and placed in a 3.5-acre bowl being carved into level land on the lower end of the mine.

"We will be laying a clay liner down in there first," Jones said. "It has a very low permeability. The next layer will be crushed limestone. The limestone will react with any fluid that may pass through and neutralize the acids."

In addition, there will be a collection system installed which will include a tank to catch any waste that may escape, he added.

"We will be able to detect those fluids and monitor them for their toxicity and volume," he said.

Once the waste rock is in the bowl, another clay layer will be slathered on top to encapsulate the hazardous material. A 6-foot-thick layer of soil removed from the bowl will be placed on top of the clay.

"Then we will put two feet of topsoil on top of that," he said. "We want the grasses and shrubs to get back on it as quickly as possible."

The Forest Service is growing 15,000 plants for reclamation of the site, he said.

"Nature is the best defense against erosion," he said.

Long-term maintenance will include cutting small trees every decade or so to prevent tree root systems from weakening the seal, he said.

"We are working with the EPA now to see if this site qualifies to be on the Superfund list," he said, adding that determination likely will be made next spring. If it is selected as a Superfund site, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of California would then be responsible for long-term maintenance and monitoring, he said.

How long will the repository be safe?

"For the foreseeable future," Jones said. "Clay is a natural product which has the ability to self-seal if it is punctured."

Forest Road 1060, which leads to the mine, has been closed temporarily because of safety concerns.

Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 541-776-4496 or e-mail him at pfattig@mailtribune.com.

-----

To see more of the Mail Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.mailtribune.com.

Copyright (c) 2010, Mail Tribune, Medford, Ore.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com, e-mail services@mctinfoservices.com, or call 866-280-5210 (outside the United States, call +1 312-222-4544).

American International Group Inc.

S&P's ratings on American International Group Inc. (AIG; A-/Negative/A-1) and AIG's insurance subsidiaries (most of which are rated A+/Negative/--) are not affected by the company's announcement that Robert S. (Steve) Miller has succeeded Harvey Golub as chairman of AIG's board of directors.

Given Steve Miller's new position, S&P recently discussed with him the current challenges and operational risks associated with AIG's restructuring plan and exit plan from government control. It is the rating agency's understanding that he and the other board members will collaborate with the company's CEO to lead AIG through its restructuring plans. Although S&P continues to believe that the current plans' execution risks remain relatively high, primarily because of external market conditions, it does not see this chairmanship change adding to the existing challenges, and it expects a relatively smooth transition.

An A.I.G. Failure Would Have Cost Goldman Sachs, Documents Show

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

Published: July 23, 2010

Since the United States government stepped in to rescue the American International Group in the fall of 2008, Goldman Sachs has maintained that it would have faced few if any losses had the insurer failed. Though it was the insurer's biggest trading partner, Goldman contended that it had bought credit insurance from financial institutions that would have protected it, but it declined to identify the institutions.

A Congressional document released late Friday lists those institutions and shows that Goldman was exposed to losses in an A.I.G. default because some of the investment bank's trading partners, such as Citibank and Lehman Brothers , were financially unstable and might have been unable to make good on large claims from Goldman.

The document details every institution that had sold credit insurance on A.I.G. to Goldman as of Sept. 15, 2008, the day before the New York Fed arranged the insurer's rescue with an $85 billion backstop. The document, supplied by Goldman Sachs, was released by Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

Goldman had purchased credit protection on A.I.G. worth $402 million from Citigroup and $175 million from Lehman Brothers, the document shows. As of the date of the document, Lehman had already filed for bankruptcy protection.

“This illustrates that the Goldman version of reality is not entirely accurate,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director at Institutional Risk Analytics. “They did have exposure to A.I.G., and that is what drove their behavior in the bailout.”

Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman, reiterated that the firm was fully protected from an A.I.G. default and noted that the protection it had purchased from financial institutions required that they post cash to Goldman to cover rising exposures. “Given that we were receiving and paying collateral on a daily basis, the risk to us of not being able to collect on our hedges had A.I.G. defaulted was de minimus,” Mr. van Praag said.

For decades, Goldman and A.I.G. had a long and fruitful relationship, with A.I.G. insuring billions in mortgage-related securities that Goldman Sachs underwrote. When the mortgage market started to deteriorate in 2007, however, the relationship went sour and Goldman began demanding cash from A.I.G. to cover the declining value of the securities it had insured. A dispute ensued, and Goldman began buying credit insurance on A.I.G. to protect against possible losses arising from its dealings with the company.

According to the document, Goldman held a total of $1.7 billion in insurance on A.I.G. from almost 90 institutions. Its exposure to A.I.G. at that time was $2.6 billion.

Goldman bought most of the insurance from large foreign and domestic banks, including Credit Suisse ($310 million), Morgan Stanley ($243 million) and JPMorgan Chase ($216 million). Goldman also bought $223 million in insurance on A.I.G. from a variety of funds overseen by Pimco, the money management firm.

JPMorgan and Credit Suisse declined to comment late Friday. A Pimco official could not be reached.

Critics of the A.I.G. rescue have characterized it as a “backdoor bailout” of financial institutions that had made mortgage bets guaranteed by the beleaguered insurer. Initially, the government refused to identify these institutions, causing consternation among some in Congress, including Mr. Grassley, who thought the taxpayers should know whom they had benefited.

The issue of the rescue's beneficiaries surfaced again last Wednesday in hearings sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee. Elizabeth Warren , the chairwoman of the Congressional panel that oversees the government's responses to the credit crisis , testified that Goldman Sachs had declined to supply her staff with information about the insurance it had bought to protect itself from an A.I.G. failure.

Because the Congressional panel cannot issue subpoenas, Mr. Grassley suggested that his committee request the information from Goldman, subpoenaing the firm if necessary. Goldman quickly submitted the materials.

“It's as if the New York Fed used A.I.G. as a front man to bail out big banks all over the world,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement. “It took nearly two years for the public to learn these details, and they only were revealed because Congress wouldn't take no for an answer. Taxpayers deserve to know what happened with their money.”

Should Congress block EPA efforts on global warming?

More Clean Water Act slight of hand

Author:   Reed Hopper

In a recent "Dear Colleague" letter , Representative Oberstar claims his new bill, "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act" (H.R.5088) , would "restore, but not expand, the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act" that existed prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos . As proof that he is telling the truth, he cites self-serving letters from the EPA and the Corps of Engineers  that support his assessment of the bill's impact. But Mr. Oberstar couldn't have found a more biased endorsement. These are the very agencies the Supreme Court castigated for their limitless and ever-changing interpretation of the Clean Water Act that exceeded the scope of their own regulations, the plain language of the Act, the clear intent of Congress, and likely even the outside boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. Asking the EPA and Corps if the Supreme Court was wrong in SWANCC and Rapanos is like asking a felon if the jury was wrong to convict him. After more than thirty years of overreaching, power-hungry bureaucrats are not going to admit they exceeded their authority.

As for Mr. Oberstar's claim that "if a discharge into waters of the United States was not subject to being regulated prior to the Supreme Court cases, it will not become regulated because of the passage of this bill," it is a half truth and gives no comfort against continued overreaching. What Mr. Oberstar fails to mention is that although the Clean Water Act prohibits unauthorized discharges into "navigable waters,"prior to SWANCC and Rapanos the EPA and Corps claimed jurisdiction over virtually all waters in the Nation. As Justice Scalia noted in Rapanos,

In the last three decades, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have interpreted their jurisdiction over "the waters of the United States" to cover 270-to-300 million acres of swampy lands in the United States--including half of Alaska and an area the size of California in the lower 48 States. And that was just the beginning. The Corps has also asserted jurisdiction over virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit--whether man-made or natural, broad or narrow, permanent or ephemeral--through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow. On this view, the federally regulated "waters of the United States" include storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the desert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years. Because they include the land containing storm sewers and desert washes, the statutory "waters of the United States" engulf entire cities and immense arid wastelands. In fact, the entire land area of the United States lies in some drainage basin, and an endless network of visible channels furrows the entire surface, containing water ephemerally wherever the rain falls. [According to the Corps and EPA] [a]ny plot of land containing such a channel may potentially be regulated as a "water of the United States."

Without saying so, this is what Mr. Oberstar's bill is designed to "restore"–a limitless exercise of federal power over all waters in the Nation. In fact, Mr. Oberstar's original bill, the euphemistically named "Clean Water Restoration Act," literally asserted jurisdiction over "all waters," both navigable and nonnavigable, including any impoundments of these waters. But today, Mr. Oberstar will tell you opponents of the bill read too much into it. He never intended to regulate all waters, just most of them. What Mr. Oberstar and the Corps and EPA fail no comprehend is that words have meaning. The Supreme Court, and for that matter the regulated public, must therefore be forgiven for concluding that when Congress limited federal authority in the Clean Water Act to "navigable waters" that term had to mean something. And it didn't mean all waters in the United States.

Now, having recognized that the controversial "Clean Water Restoration Act" was setting off alarm bells across the country because of its assertion of federal authority over "all waters," Mr. Oberstar has rewritten the bill in the form of "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act." This bill no longer uses the term "all waters." It is more subtle. But, the intent is the same–to regulate all waters in the Nation (and much of the land). H.R. 5088 would federalize all navigable waters and "all other waters including [but not limited to] intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which does or would affect interstate or foreign commerce" as well as all impoundments and tributaries of these waters, including all waters adjacent to these waters. It would also include those waters that are the subject of international treaties or that might affect federal lands. In other words, "all waters."

So broad is the bill's definition of covered waters that the only practical limit on federal authority is the regulators' own subjective judgment. Which is to say, no limit at all. If it were to pass, "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act" would give federal bureaucrats unprecedented power to control the use of virtually any wet spot in the Country, and much of the surrounding land. In its application, this would far exceed any constitutional power delegated to Congress.

Accordingly, TS's should only be conducted for individuals that are looking for a property to determine the right fit and are worthy of moving forward with a Phase I ESA. One would think that the commercial real estate community learned from the past and provided themselves, their clients and their companies with the best possible, defendable product available,such as a Phase I ESA. Instead, the commercial real estate community is worrying about saving a few dollars by using a simple, non-enforceable TS. This negligence could open a party to extensive remedial action and litigation costs, which could have been avoided by conducting a Phase I ESA.It is the real estate community's responsibility to provide clients with the appropriate advice and products that are not only accurate but will afford our clients with protection from potential future litigation and remediation costs. 

Imperial EPA, in the Traditional Sense of Imperial

Posted by: Carter Wood under Around the States , Regulations on July 23, 2010 @ 7:26 am

We often refer to the Environmental Protection Agency as the Imperial EPA because it treats the policymaking branch of government, Congress, as a minor bother while issuing dictate after dictate to the rest of the country. The agency is “imperial” in the sense of a central authority being arrogant, aggrandizing, and very, very expensive.

Now the EPA even wants to design its imperial outposts! The rubric is “ Greening America's Capitals .”

Greening America's Capitals is a project of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities between EPA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to help state capitals develop an implementable vision of distinctive, environmentally friendly neighborhoods that incorporate innovative green building and green infrastructure strategies. This program will assist three to four communities per year, with the first projects beginning in the fall of 2010.EPA will fund a team of designers to visit each city to produce schematic designs and exciting illustrations intended to catalyze or complement a larger planning process for the pilot neighborhood. Additionally, these pilots could be the testing ground for citywide actions, such as changes to local codes and ordinances to better support sustainable growth and green building. The design team and EPA, HUD, and DOT staff will also assist the city staff in developing specific implementation strategies.

Is this something the federal government really needs to be doing? Theoretically, this program might serve the public good by distracting EPA personnel from other, more destructive regulating, but really …are there no limits to the EPA's reach? And spending? And imperial accrual of power?

Deadline for applications was July 9, with the awards to be announced in September.

EPA feels tug-of-war

EPA Puts Money into West Coast Ship Projects

John D. Boyd | Jul 22, 2010 8:55PM GMT

Climate bill dead

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Why the U.S. Need Not Fear a Sovereign Debt Crisis: Unlike Greece, It Is Actually Sovereign

Ellen Brown

Author, "Web of Debt"

Posted: July 23, 2010 10:45 AM

Last week, a Chinese rating agency downgraded U.S. debt from triple A and number one globally, to "double A with a negative outlook" and only 13th worldwide. The downgrade renewed fears that the sovereign debt crisis that began in Greece will soon reach America. That is the concern, but the U.S. is distinguished from Greece in that its debt is denominated in its own currency, over which it has sovereign control. The government can simply print the money it needs or borrow from a central bank that prints it. We should not let deficit hawks and short sellers dissuade the government from pursuing that obvious expedient.

We did not hear much about "sovereign debt" until early this year when Greece hit the skids. Investment adviser Martin Weiss wrote in a February 24 newsletter:

On October 8, Greece's benchmark 10-year bond was stable and rising. Then, suddenly and without warning, global investors dumped their Greek bonds with unprecedented fury, driving its market value into a death spiral.

Likewise, Portugal's 10-year government bond reached a peak on December 1, 2009, less than three months ago. It has also started to plunge virtually nonstop.

The reason: A new contagion of fear about sovereign debt! Indeed, both governments are so deep in debt, investors worry that default is not only possible -- it is now likely!

So said the media, but note that Greece and Portugal were doing remarkably well only three months earlier. Then, "suddenly and without warning," global investors furiously dumped their bonds. Why? Weiss and other commentators blamed a sudden "contagion of fear about sovereign debt." But as Bill Murphy, another prolific newsletter writer, reiterates, "Price action makes market commentary." The pundits look at what just happened in the market and then dream up some plausible theory to explain it. What President Franklin Roosevelt said of politics, however, may also be true of markets: "Nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

That the collapse of Greece's sovereign debt may actually have been planned was suggested in a Wall Street Journal article in February, in which Susan Pullian and co-authors reported:

Some heavyweight hedge funds have launched large bearish bets against the euro in moves that are reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the U.S. financial crisis.

The big bets are emerging amid gatherings such as an exclusive 'idea dinner' earlier this month that included hedge-fund titans SAC Capital Advisors LP and Soros Fund Management LLC.

[...]

There is nothing improper about hedge funds jumping on the same trade unless it is deemed by regulators to be collusion. Regulators haven't suggested that any trading has been improper.

Regulators hadn't suggested it yet; but on the same day that the story was published, the antitrust division of the U.S. Justice Department sent letters to a number of hedge funds attending the dinner, warning them not to destroy any trading records involving market bets on the euro.

Represented at the dinner was the hedge fund of George Soros, who was instrumental in collapsing the British pound in 1992 by heavy short-selling. Soros was quoted as warning that if the European Union did not fix its finances, "the euro may fall apart." Was it really a warning? Or was it the sort of rumor designed to make the euro fall apart? A concerted attack on the euro, beginning with its weakest link, the Greek bond, could bring down that currency just as short selling had brought down the pound.

These sorts of rumors have not been confined to the Greek bond and the euro. In The Financial Times , Niall Ferguson wrote an article titled "A Greek Crisis Is Coming to America," in which he warned:

It began in Athens. It is spreading to Lisbon and Madrid. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the sovereign debt crisis that is unfolding will remain confined to the weaker eurozone economies.

America, he maintained, would suffer a sovereign debt crisis as well, and this would happen sooner than expected.

The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.

The catch is that the U.S. does not need to satisfy the IMF.

"Sovereign debt" Is an Oxymoron
America cannot actually suffer from a sovereign debt crisis. Why? Because it has no sovereign debt. As Wikipedia explains:

A sovereign bond is a bond issued by a national government. The term usually refers to bonds issued in foreign currencies, while bonds issued by national governments in the country's own currency are referred to as government bonds. The total amount owed to the holders of the sovereign bonds is called sovereign debt.

Damon Vrabel , of the Council on Renewal in Seattle, concludes:

The sovereign debt crisis... is a fabrication of the Ivy League, Wall Street and erudite periodicals like the Financial Times of London.. It seems ridiculous to point this out, but sovereign debt implies sovereignty. Right? Well, if countries are sovereign, then how could they be required to be in debt to private banking institutions? How could they be so easily attacked by the likes of George Soros, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs? Why would they be subjugated to the whims of auctions and traders? A true sovereign is in debt to nobody...

Unlike Greece and other EU members, which are forbidden to issue their own currencies or borrow from their own central banks, the U.S. government can solve its debt crisis by the simple expedient of either printing the money it needs directly, or borrowing it from its own central bank which prints the money. The current term of art for this maneuver is "quantitative easing," and Ferguson says it is what has so far "stood between the US and larger bond yields" -- that, and China's massive purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Both are winding down now, he warns, renewing the hazard of a sovereign debt crisis.

"Explosions of public debt hurt economies..." Ferguson contends, "by raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, [pushing] up real interest rates."

Market jitters may be a hazard, but if the U.S. finds itself with government bonds and no buyers, it will no doubt resort to quantitative easing again, just as it has in the past -- not necessarily overtly, but by buying bonds through offshore entities, swapping government debt for agency debt, and other sleights of hand. The mechanics may vary, but so long as "Helicopter Ben" is at the helm, dollars are liable to appear as needed.

Hyperinflation: A Bogus Threat Today
Proposals to solve government budget crises by simply issuing the necessary funds, whether as currency or as bonds, invariably meet with dire warnings that the result will be hyperinflation. But before an economy can be threatened with hyperinflation, it has to pass through simple inflation; and today the world is struggling with deflation. The U.S. money supply has been shrinking at an unprecedented rate. In a May 26 article in The Financial Times titled "US Money Supply Plunges at 1930s Pace as Obama Eyes Fresh Stimulus," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard observed:

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of institutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

So long as workers are out of work and resources are sitting idle, as they are today, money can be added to the money supply without driving prices up. Price inflation results when "demand" (money) increases faster than "supply" (goods and services). If the new money is used to create new goods and services, prices will remain stable. That is where "quantitative easing" has gone astray today: the money has not been directed into creating goods, services and jobs but has been steered into the coffers of the banks, cleaning up their balance sheets and providing them with cheap credit that they have not deigned to pass on to the productive economy.

Our forefathers described the government they were creating as a "common wealth," ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for its people. Implied in that vision was an opportunity for employment for anyone wanting to work, as well as essential social services for the population. All of that can be provided by a government that claims sovereignty over its money supply.

A true sovereign need not indebt itself to private banks but can simply issue the money it needs. That is what the American colonists did, in the innovative paper money system that allowed them to flourish for a century before King George forbade them to issue their own scrip prompting the American Revolution. It is also what Abraham Lincoln did, foiling the Wall Street bankers who would have trapped the North in debt slavery through the exigencies of war. And it is what China itself did successfully for decades, before it succumbed to globalization. China got the idea from Abraham Lincoln through his admirer Sun Yat-sen; and Lincoln took his cue from the American colonists, our forebears. We need to reclaim our sovereign right as a nation to fund the common wealth they envisioned without begging from foreign creditors or entangling the government in debt.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

EPA to tech companies: build products that break down

New $35M vet housing project breaks ground

Documents released by the Senate Finance Committee show Goldman Sachs had hedged against losses to A.I.G. and that the Fed was aware of it.

• Documents Show Goldman Cheering Subprime Chaos

  New documents from a Senate investigation show top Goldman Sachs Group executives cheering the gains they were reaping as subprime-mortgage securities collapsed in value in 2007.

• Goldman releases e-mails to build its defense

  Goldman Sachs Group Inc. released that e-mail and 25 other internal documents Saturday in response to a Senate panel's release of messages.

• Goldman Subpoenaed by FCIC, Fails to Provide Documents

  The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has filed a subpoena seeking documents from Goldman Sachs for not providing documents and interviews in a timely manner, officials from the FCIC said Monday.

• US Senate panels releases Goldman Sachs emails

  A US Senate investigative panel has released several emails that could prove embarrassing to Goldman Sachs as they suggest the Wall Street investment giant used the US sub-prime mortgage crisis to make tens of millions of dollars in profit.The documents, made public Saturday, do not provide proof that the investment bank broke the law, but they do show that its executives sought to make a killing on the crisis that erupted in 2007.

• Senate panel: Goldman hurt customers

  Goldman Sachs bet aggressively against the U.S. mortgage market, but also profited at the expense of some clients, according to a series of company documents released by lawmakers Monday.

• Documents detail $4.3B in Goldman Sachs payouts (AP)

  International banks and financial companies were indirect beneficiaries of the government's 2008 bailout of American International Group Inc., according to newly released documents.

• E-mails show Goldman boasting as meltdown unfolds (AP)

  AP - E-mails released by a Senate committee investigating the financial crisis show top executives at Goldman Sachs boasting about money the firm was making from the housing market's collapse.

• E-mails show Goldman boasting as meltdown unfolds (AP)

  E-mails released by a Senate committee investigating the financial crisis show top executives at Goldman Sachs boasting about money the firm was making from the housing market's collapse.

• E-mails show Goldman boasting as meltdown unfolds (AP)

  E-mails released by a Senate committee investigating the financial crisis show top executives at Goldman Sachs Inc. boasting about money the firm was making as the housing market collapsed in 2007.

• Crisis panel subpoenas Goldman for meltdown docs (AP)

  A panel probing the causes of the financial meltdown has issued a subpoena for documents from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission said Monday that Goldman refused to hand over the documents voluntarily and has made the fact-finding process difficult for months.

“Entirely a National Government”? The Anti-Federalist Perspective

Anti-Federalists understood that one cannot love an abstraction such as “the whole human race.” One loves particular flesh-and-blood members of that race. “My love must be discriminate / or fail to bear its weight,” in the words of a modern Anti-Federalist, the Kentucky poet-farmer Wendell Berry. He who loves the whole human race seldom has much time for individual members thereof.

*          *          *

The Anti's Anti, the man who is, without doubt, the least honored delegate to the Constitutional Convention, is Luther Martin of Maryland. Popular accounts of the Constitutional Convention designate Martin as the villain—think a circa-1973 hybrid of Dennis Hopper and Ernest Borgnine, endlessly talkative but fitfully coherent, an obstructionist, a naysayer. He is the town drunk, the class bore, the motormouth.

Yet he was also, as the historian M. E. Bradford has written, “The tireless champion of the sovereignty of the states . . . A cheerful pessimist . . . and a great original.”

“The federalistic principles found in the Constitution are largely a result of concessions to [Martin's] demands,” wrote historian Everett D. Obrecht. “Without his presence in the convention, the new national government would have been far more powerful.” Yet it was still too powerful for Luther Martin.

Martin understood quite clearly that the Constitution was a counterrevolution, recentralizing that which had been decentralized upon the assertion of American independence. “Men love power,” Hamilton told the convention. To Hamilton this was a simple statement of fact, not at all deplorable. The Anti-Federalists had their doubts about its accuracy—did not men love their families, their homeplaces, their liberties even more?—but in the event, they desired not to channel this powerlust toward profitable ends but rather to block those avenues down which power is pursued. If it is true that men love to wield power over other men and that a centralized state will attract such warped creatures, then rather than design a Rube Goldberg scheme by which the will to dominate is transmuted into gold for the commonweal, why not just not construct a centralized state? Remove the means of gratifying the temptation.

Luther Martin was “the bitterest states' rightser at the Convention,” wrote Christopher and James Lincoln Collier. “He was unyielding, beyond compromise on the point, and when he spoke on the issue it was always in the strongest of terms.” This is because he conned the game and he kenned the consequences. Not only the rights of the states but their very existence was at stake.

Lest the dire warnings of Martin and the Anti-Federalists be dismissed as so much alarmist hokum, consider that not every nationalizer spoke with politic caution. Delaware's George Read declared: “Too much attachment is betrayed to the State Governments. We must look beyond their continuance. A national Govt. must soon of necessity swallow all of them up. They will soon be reduced to the mere office of electing the national Senate.” Effused Read: We must “do . . . away States altogether.”

Or ponder the exchange between James Wilson, the archcentralist Scotsman, and Alexander Hamilton. Though they putatively represented Pennsylvania and New York, their ultimate loyalties could never be centered upon mere states of a confederacy. “With me, it is not a desirable object to annihilate the State governments,” Wilson said on June 19, “and here I differ from the honorable gentleman from New York. In all extensive empires, a subdivision of power is necessary.”

Hamilton objected, ever so mildly, to Wilson's verb. In his lengthy address of the day ultimo, “my meaning was, that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments,” explained Hamilton. The states, he added, “will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale.”

Extinguish, yes; annihilate, no. The only difference is in the violence of the verb.

Time and again, Luther Martin stood alone, or nearly so, in attempting to infuse the new Constitution with something of the spirit of '76. He was a libertarian in a body of men convinced that America needed a more vigorous government; he spoke of decentralism to men with centripetal convictions. He might not be seconded; oft he was rebuffed, rebutted, reproached. But he kept on coming.

Thrice he proposed to bar the president from reelection. He advocated the appointment of judges by the Senate, not the executive. (James Madison conceded that concurrence of the second branch might guard against “any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.” Martin got half of this loaf.) He called for senators to be paid by the states, not the national government, because “the Senate is to represent the States, [so] the members of it ought to be paid by the States.” He successfully proposed to affix “or on confession in open court” to the requirement that “No person be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act.” (He would revisit the grounds for treason much later.) Martin moved that the Electoral Collegians be chosen by state legislatures. His was the only stated objection to (and Maryland's the only vote against) per-capita voting by senators. He wished them to vote as a unit by states, in keeping with the gist of the Articles of Confederation. He successfully opposed a clause, proposed by Charles Pinckney and Gouverneur Morris, that would give the national government the power “to subdue a rebellion in any State” even if the legislature of the state had not requested intervention.

On August 21, 1787, he greeted the morning with a motion, seconded by his colleague James McHenry, requiring that direct taxation (which in any event “should not be used but in case of absolute necessity”) be paid by the states into the national treasury rather than be levied directly by the national government. It failed, 7–1, with only New Jersey voting aye. (Maryland was divided.)

On August 29, he seconded the motion of Charles Pinckney that acts “regulating the commerce of the U.S. with foreign powers, or among the several States,” required the approval of two-thirds of each house of Congress. Pinckney's motion, which would have effectively eliminated high tariffs and made the U.S. a kind of free-trade zone, failed, attracting only the votes of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Also on the 29th, Martin asserted, vainly, the position of the “limited States” against “the large States” on the matter of the disposition of western lands. The sudden embrace of state territorial integrity by the likes of Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson amused him: “He wished,” Madison transcribed Martin as saying, that “Mr. Wilson had thought a little sooner of the value of political bodies. In the beginning, when the rights of the small States were in question, they were phantoms, ideal beings. Now when the Great States were to be affected, political societies were of a sacred nature.”

Why should the people of the western lands not have the right to form their own states? And why must Maryland and New Jersey and Delaware “guarantee the Western claims of the large” states? This dispute was a carryover from the debate over the Articles. It felt stale.

*          *          *

Summer's end was in the air. It was a time for summing up. On August 31, George Mason said that he would “sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands,” and in the end, he did neither. “There is no declaration of rights,” he later said by way of explaining his refusal to sign the document. “There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor the danger of standing armies in time of peace.”

Mason's objections were sweeping and took in all three branches of the new government. The House of Representatives would provide “the shadow only” and not the substance of real representation. The Senate, with its powers of appointment and treaty-making and its elongated six-year terms, “will destroy any balance in government.” As for the federal judiciary, it is “so constructed and extended as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states.” In transferring the administration of justice to a remote capital, it renders “justice as unattainable” and enables “the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.”

The executive, without benefit of a constitutional council chosen by the states through the House of Representatives, will be “directed by minions and favorites.” His helpmeet, “that unnecessary officer, the Vice-President . . . for want of other employment, is made president of the Senate; thereby dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers.”

A very bad moon was on the rise. “This government,” predicted Mason, “will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”

Never afraid to stand alone, Martin moved on August 31 that the approval of all thirteen states be required for ratification. He lost, nine states to one. He and Daniel Carroll, over Jenifer's dissent, cast the only state vote against final passage of the ratification clause. Nine states only would be necessary to junk the Articles and get this party started. Martin later explained that

It was my opinion, that to agree upon a ratification of the constitution by any less number than the whole thirteen states, is so directly repugnant to our present articles of confederation, and the mode therein prescribed for their alteration, and such a violation of the compact which the states, in the most solemn manner, have entered into with each other, that those who could advocate a contrary proposition, ought never to be confided in, and entrusted in public life.

Martin and Carroll also caused Maryland to cast the sole vote against ratification by convention, Martin contending that state legislatures were the proper arbitrators. Martin was no mobocrat. In his brief remarks on state conventions we can foresee the Federalist of 1800 in utero. He understood “the danger of commotions from a resort to the people,” for the people can be gulled, the people fall for lies, the people can rampage. Martin was an Anti-Federalist but he was not a populist. Nor, however, was he a preening aristocrat. Within the convention, he stood at antipodes from the likes of Hamilton or Charles Pinckney, who suggested property qualifications of $100,000 for president and $50,000 for senators, representatives, and federal judges. (Doctor Franklin piped up that some of the greatest rogues were the richest rogues, and Pinckney's plutocratic motion died.)

Martin left Philadelphia on September 4. He intended, he said, to return, but did not. Despite “two months close application under those august and enlightened masters of the science with which the Convention abounded,” Martin had been unable to discover “anything in the history of mankind . . . to warrant or countenance the motley mixture of a system proposed.” The Constitution was

neither wholly federal, nor wholly national—but a strange hotch-potch of both—just so much federal in appearance as to give its advocates . . . an opportunity of passing it as such upon the unsuspecting multitude, before they had time and opportunity to examine it, and yet so predominantly national as to put it in the power of its movers, whenever the machine shall be set agoing, to strike out every part that has the appearance of being federal, and to render it wholly and entirely a national government.

Though Luther Martin did not return to Philadelphia to give “my solemn negative” to the document, he did phone in a request, as it were: “that as long as the history of mankind shall record the appointment of the late Convention, and the system which has been proposed by them, it is my highest ambition that my name also be recorded as one who considered the system injurious to my country, and as such opposed it.”

U.S. Department of Commerce

New rules on universal jurisdiction

22 July 2010

The Government is proposing new rules about how courts in England and Wales deal with people accused of serious human rights violations.

There are a small number of offences over which the United Kingdom has 'universal jurisdiction'. That means that a suspect can be prosecuted regardless of where the crime was committed, or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.

Offences covered include some of the most serious under international law, such as:

• war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act

• torture, and

• hostage-taking.

A person accused of committing these very serious crimes in another country can be brought to justice in UK courts.

At the moment anyone can apply to the courts for an arrest warrant. That is a right that the Government wants to protect. However, because the evidence necessary to issue an arrest warrant may be far less than would be needed for a prosecution, the system is open to possible abuse by people trying to obtain arrest warrants for grave crimes on the basis of flimsy evidence to make a political statement or to cause embarrassment.

In the past, attempts have been made to obtain warrants to arrest visiting foreign dignitaries such as Henry Kissinger, Chinese Trade Minister Bo Xilai and Tzipi Livni, former Foreign Minister and now leader of the Opposition in Israel.

Announcing plans to bring forward legislation, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke restated the Government's commitment to upholding international law and said:

'Our commitment to our international obligations and to ensuring that there is no impunity for those accused of crimes of universal jurisdiction is unwavering.

'It is important, however, that universal jurisdiction cases should be proceeded with in this country only on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to a successful prosecution – otherwise there is a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign policy.

'The Government has concluded, after careful consideration, that it would be appropriate to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued to a private prosecutor in respect of an offence of universal jurisdiction.'

The Government will bring forward legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

Notes to editors

1. The jurisdiction of the courts in England and Wales is basically territorial – with some exceptions they only try offences committed in England and Wales. However, war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and a small number of other grave offences, are subject to universal jurisdiction. This enables prosecution to take place here even though the offence was committed outside the United Kingdom, and irrespective of nationality.

2. A private prosecution can be brought in universal jurisdiction cases. It is open to any individual to initiate criminal proceedings by applying to a magistrate for a summons or an arrest warrant. The consent of the Attorney General or Crown Prosecution Service is not required.

3. The evidence required for the issue of a summons or warrant is far less onerous than that required by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in determining whether a prosecution should go ahead. The court must simply be shown some information that an offence has been committed by the accused, and it does not need to decide that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

4. For more information contact the Ministry of Justice Press Office on 020 3334 3536.

The Deck is Still Stacked in the Government's Favor -- Is This A Good Thing?

Posted on July 22, 2010 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, in City of Pittsfield v. EPA , the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a petition by the City of Pittsfield seeking review of an NPDES permit issued by EPA. The case makes no new law and, by itself, is not particularly remarkable.  Cases on NPDES permit appeals have held for some time that a permittee appealing an NPDES permit must set forth in detail in its petition basically every conceivable claim or argument that they might want to assert. Pretty much no detail is too small. The City of Pittsfield failed to do this, instead relying on their prior comments on the draft permit. Not good enough, said the Court. 

For some reason, reading the decision brought to mind another recent appellate decision, General Electric v. Jackson , in which the D.C. Circuit laid to rest arguments that EPA's unilateral order authority under § 106 of CERCLA is unconstitutional.  As I noted in commenting on that decision, it too was unremarkable by itself and fully consistent with prior case law on the subject.

What do these two cases have in common? To me, they are evidence that, while the government can over-reach and does lose some cases, the deck remains stacked overwhelmingly in the government's favor. The power of the government as regulator is awesome to behold. Looking at the GE case first, does anyone really deny that EPA's § 106 order authority is extremely coercive? Looking at the Pittsfield case, doesn't it seem odd that a party appealing a permit has to identify with particularity every single nit that they might want to pick with the permit? Even after the Supreme Court's recent decisions tightening pleading standards, the pleading burden on a permit appellant remains much more substantial than on any other type of litigant.

Why should this be so? Why is it that the government doesn't lose when it's wrong, but only when it's crazy wrong? 

• Power Air Corporation (â PACâ), is a clean energy company, and has been proceeding to its objective by virtue of developing a commercially viable Zinc-Air Fuel Cell ("ZAFC") technology that is able to generate reliable, environmentally sustainable, zero emission energy for portable, stationary, light mobility, and transportation applications. [ 1.1 ] HelioVolt To Open Thin Film Solar Factory in Austin, Texas. [ 1.2 ] Odyne Receives Purchase Order From DUECO for Twenty Five Plug-in Hybrid Aerial Lift Truck Systems. [ 1.3 ]

  The systems will be installed by DUECO to power the first plug-in hybrid electric aerial lift trucks, "bucket trucks," used by utility companies to maintain electric, telephone and cable lines. [ 1.4 ] Environmental Defense : EPA Denies State Climate Action . [ 1.5 ]

  The US Environmental Protection Agency has denied California and 17 other states the right to proceed with regulations that would reduce global warming pollution from new automobiles. [ 1.6 ] Oilsource Holdings and Greenline Industries to Build Largest Biodiesel Plant In The Southeastern U.S. The 60 million gallon per year plant is expected to be commissioned by the first quarter of 2009. [ 1.7 ]

  Duke Energy To Purchase 150 Megawatts of Wind Turbines From GE Energy . [ 1.8 ] FPL and NASA To Explore Renewable Energy Projects In Florida. [ 1.9 ]

  Both leaders in solar energy will combine experience to advance and deploy the use of large scale solar technology in Florida as early as 2008. [ 1.10 ]

  Acumentrics Canada To Investigate Ammonia As Hydrogen Source For Solid Oxide Fuel Cells . [ 1.11 ] GE Energy To Provide 333 Wind Turbines to Noble Environmental Power. [ 1.12 ]

  The 100, 1.5 megawatt turbines will be used at yet to be determined sites in the western and southwestern United States (more) [ 1.13 ] It uses a combination of atmospheric oxygen and zinc pellets in a liquid alkaline electrolyte to generate electricity with by products of zinc oxide and potassium zincates. [ 1.14 ] The contract valued at approximately $650 million will add nearly 500 megawatts of wind power capacity to the renewable energy supply of the US. [ 1.15 ] Aqua Society: Generating Electricity From Waste Heat. [ 1.16 ] Industrial waste heat can save 14 million tons of CO2 annually in Europe. [ 1.17 ]

  UK Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR): Major Offshore Wind Expansion Enough Power For The Equivalent Of All UK Homes By 2020. [ 1.18 ] UK Energy Secretary John Hutton announced proposals to open up its seas to up to 33GW (gigawatts) of offshore wind energy. [ 1.19 ] The fuel cell will convert ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen internally and release only water vapor and nitrogen. [ 1.20 ]

  Samsung Techwin And I Power Energy Systems To Develop, Distribute Packaged Cogeneration System. [ 1.21 ] The joint program will develop a 365kW combined prime heat and power unit for industrial, institutional and commercial applications. [ 1.22 ]

  Dynamotive will invest $24 million for the facility that will be located on a site in Willow Springs , approximately 180 miles southwest of St. Louis, Missouri. [ 1.23 ]

  It has been stated in this connection, that the generator has been developed by Power Air along with its Korea-based partner H-Plus Eco Ltd. The generator functions on non-flammable and non-explosive zinc fuel and is able to render indoor power generation with no fumes and no emissions, it is reported. [ 1.24 ]

  As such, the technology has great potential in uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and telecom backup, "notes Frost & Sullivan Research Analyst, Anthony Miller . [ 1.25 ]

  Through its advancements both on the fuel cell and the generator itself, the ZAFC can move into largely untapped markets, such as back up power for apartment and high rise occupants, where there is currently no solution. [ 1.26 ]

  In areas where there are restrictions against the use of power motors on boats, time-usage constraints within campgrounds or for the consumers that are simply more environmentally conscious, a ZAFC generator offers a simple solution. [ 1.27 ]

  This groundbreaking technology is expected to be competitively priced with other forms of on-site power, making it especially affordable in higher income cities such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. [ 1.28 ] Fuel cells have been around for over 40 years, I just hope someone can finally release one that is cost effective and ideal for various situations (Camping, cars, etc). [ 1.29 ]

  I guess the main difference is that, for the VRB flow battery, the electrolyte is recharged in place, whereas for the Power Air ZAFC the electrolyte is changed out like fuel, and someone else recharges it. [ 1.30 ] Maybe the ZAFC is less suitable for industrial power management, like providing power regulation to a wind farm, although perhaps the technology could be adapted for that. [ 1.31 ]

  Power Air has the exclusive worldwide license to zinc-air fuel cell technology that has been developed at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for all fields of use (portable, stationary, light mobility and transportation applications) and commercialization [ 1.32 ]

  H-Plus Eco Ltd. was initiated in Nov. 2000 and from its commencement has been performing as a frontrunner company in environmental consulting, engineering and construction for contaminated soil and wastewater in Korea. [ 1.33 ]

  Besides the company has its own objective to be the first commercially viable fuel cell company while powering low cost, silent, zero emission fuel cell based products developed with OEM partners for portable, stationary, light mobility, and transportation markets. [ 1.34 ] Frank Hermance , Chairman and Chief Executive Officer , and John Molinelli , Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer , will review AMETEK's first quarter and 2006 outlook. [ 1.35 ]

  Exide Technologies (NASDAQ: XIDE), a global leader in stored electrical-energy solutions, has received a favorable ruling in its lawsuit with EnerSys , a manufacturer of industrial batteries. [ 1.36 ] Power Air Corporation (OTCBB: PWAC) recently announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with Mid States Tool and Machine Inc. of Decatur, Indiana. [ 1.37 ]

  Financial News USA has developed leading edge e-publishing tools including programming proprietary RSS feeds and enabling open source press release publishing across its network. [ 1.38 ]

• Co-developed by Magnetek and VRB Power

  Co-developed by Magnetek and VRB Power, the 5kW ESS is an alternative to traditional lead-acid battery backup systems. [ 2.1 ]

  On display in Booth 4369 at the CTIA Wireless 2006 show in Las Vegas, Nevada (April 5-7), the ESS system provides cost effective, reliable, environmentally friendly, virtually maintenance-free backup power for wireless cell sites and other telecommunications systems. [ 2.2 ] Scarce research and development funds would be better spent at this time replacing the iCE backup generator with solid oxide (multi) fuel cell/microturbine generation. [ 2.3 ]

  Could a zinc/air breakthrough that allows recharging come along though? [ 2.4 ] Absolutely. [ 2.5 ]

  The company over the years has been able to forge an excellent business network with foremost refineries, engineering companies and motor companies in Korea such as GS Caltex , GSE&C and Hyundai/ Kia Moto

Superfund XVII: The Pathology of Environmental Policy

By James V. DeLong August 01, 1997

Executive Summary

Superfund was created in 1980 when Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Criticism of the resulting federal programs started soon thereafter and has continued ever since. Notwithstanding, Superfund has sailed on, in a remarkable demonstration of staying power. This persistence is a sobering commentary on the current state of environmental policy. Passage of a bad law can be understood — mistakes happen — but healthy institutions find their mistakes and correct them. A major signal of institutional distress is an inability to fix error, or even to admit it. By this standard, Superfund is a symptom of truly awesome pathology.

Superfund was conceived to address concerns about the sloppy disposal of hazardous wastes, particularly at abandoned sites. These concerns were valid, albeit overstated. If CERCLA had solely provided for emergency actions at abandoned waste sites, there would have been few problems or complaints. Instead, congress passed a law covering every plot of ground on which any contaminant had been spilled, however small the amount or minor the threat.

Most discussions of Superfund focus on the National Priorities List (NPL) assume that "the Superfund problem" will be dealt with once the NPL sites are cleaned up. This is not true. The NPL sites represent a small percentage of the total of contaminated sites, and not necessarily the most important ones. As long as the liability rules and cleanup standards remain unchanged the Superfund problem will exist, whatever happens to the current NPL sites.

Even when a site is cleaned up, the problems do not end. The continuing possibility of Superfund liability makes it a leper from the standpoint of investors. The post-remediation liability threat is so great that no one will touch a site even though it is declared clean. Congress made every individual Superfund site into a tarbaby, exposing anyone with any connection to it to liability for all cleanup costs. No "potentially responsible party" (PRP) can defend on the grounds that it acted legally and responsibly. This regime gives PRPs strong incentives to engage in costly litigation, delaying cleanups and wasting financial resources.

In theory, reforming Superfund has been high on the Congressional agenda for the past several sessions, but real reform has not happened. Neither Administrative reforms nor current legislative proposals address Superfund's central flaws. Under the leading Congressional proposal, S. 8 – The Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1997 – a few of the squeakiest wheels would be greased, without addressing Superfund's central flaws. S. 8 contains one reform that is clearly important: The provision shielding any site cleaned up pursuant to a state plan from suit by the federal government or any private party. Most of the other reforms would accomplish little. Mere lip service is paid to liability reform risk assessments, and the provisions to delegate more authority to states are mostly a sham. Most unfortunately, passage of proposals currently on the table would probably foreclose serious reform for another decade.

The flaws in Superfund are so fundamental that it is simply not possible to achieve meaningful reform by tinkering with the present statute. True reform of Superfund requires three steps:

1) Repeal of the current statute and its approach to hazardous waste cleanup, including federal cleanup standards, taxes, and liability rules;

2) Replace CERCLA with – nothing. Contaminated real estate is not a federal problem. It is a state and local concern. States are already outperforming the federal government at hazardous waste cleanup, and would do more if they were able.

3) Establish transition rules to sweep up the debris of seventeen years and provide a measure of justice to people enmeshed in the program, with particular concern for those sites that are already in the Superfund pipeline. The primary aim should be to expedite the process and transfer sites to state jurisdiction or where possible, private hands, through .

Under exceptional circumstances, where a release threatens to contaminate ground or surface water and spread across state lines, the federal government may have an interest where state authorities are incapable of addressing the concern, but the primary obligation should rest on the states and the principles of common law should guide nation's approach to hazardous waste sites in the future. This is the only true road to Superfund reform. Seventeen years of nonsense is enough.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

A.I.G.: The First Test of Financial Reform?

Do the sweeping financial regulations that just became law give the government another tool to deal with the American International Group ? If so, what if anything should the Treasury Department do with its new power?

More specifically, now that the government has obtained the authority to place systemically important financial companies into receivership, should the government use this procedure with A.I.G.? After all, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. has said that if he had been able to use that process in fall 2008, he would have used it. If not then, why shouldn't the government act now?

The government appears to have this power with respect to A.I.G., although it would require some procedural hurdles and a determination that A.I.G. is technically insolvent.

First, A.I.G. would have to be put under the supervision of the Federal Reserve as a systemically important nonbank financial company. This can be done by a declaration of two-thirds of the members of the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council upon their determination that A.I.G. could pose a threat the financial stability of the United States. Check. We have already found that to be true, to our regret.

A.I.G. would next have to be put into the resolution process. Because the largest subsidiary of A.I.G. is almost certainly an insurance company, the new financial regulations would require that two-thirds of the members of the Federal Reserve Board and the newly appointed director of the newly created Federal Insurance Office, in consultation with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , agree to recommend this action to the Treasury secretary.

The Treasury secretary would then decide whether to put A.I.G. into receivership based on a seven-factor test that requires him to determine whether A.I.G. “is in default or in danger of default” on its obligations and “no viable private sector alternative is available.” Importantly, the definition of default here is quite wide and includes a situation in which “the assets of the financial company are, or are likely to be, less than its obligations to creditors and others” or A.I.G. has depleted all or substantially all of its capital.

Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Oversight Panel have stressed that it is very unclear what exactly A.I.G. is worth, and it may be the case that A.I.G.'s assets are less than what the company owes the United States government for billions of dollars in bailouts. But this is a moving figure and the stock market currently assigns A.I.G.'s equity billions of dollars in value, mitigating against these assessments.

If A.I.G. were to be put into receivership, it would be unwound according to the process set forth in the bill. There is an expedited claims process and the government has the power to terminate all of A.I.G.'s derivatives contracts. (The holders would then be entitled to cash damages as creditors of the company.)

The assets of A.I.G. would first go to pay the United States government, then to wages up to $11,725 per employee and thereafter to pay senior and unsecured creditors, the senior executives and directors and finally A.I.G. shareholders.

If there is a shortfall of funds, the bill appears to provide authority for the government to recover any such shortfall through an assessment on the financial sector, although it is not entirely clear that this provision would apply to the government's prior financial assistance since it was provided before A.I.G.'s entry into receivership.

The advantages of the resolution process is that it sets a clear path for ending A.I.G.'s plight. The company would be liquidated in an orderly manner and the United States government repaid from A.I.G.'s assets or, if the bill is interpreted that way, the financial sector.

In addition, this type of resolution would penalize those creditors of A.I.G. that remain from the time before the bailout. In particular, it would ensure that the government is paid ahead of the $43.9 billion in A.I.G. private debt that was estimated to be outstanding by the Congressional Oversight Panel in its recent report on A.I.G. It would also stop the bleeding at A.I.G.

Only last week, three Ohio state pension funds reached a $725 million settlement with A.I.G. related to prior allegations of securities fraud. Only $175 million was actually paid in cash by A.I.G. (the rest will depend on an unlikely-to-occur stock offering), but this is money that comes out of the ability of A.I.G. to repay the government for its bailout.

The disadvantages of this resolution process are at least threefold.

First, there is a problem that Prof. Jeff Gordon at Columbia Law School has highlighted with the entire resolution process. Placing a company into the resolution process may itself scare the entire market and throw the financial system into panic. This may be addressed in part by only putting the main part of A.I.G. and its subsidiary AIG Financial Products (the division that wrote the derivatives that destroyed A.I.G.) into receivership, leaving the main insurance companies out of the process. But still, this would be an undeniable blow to market confidence.

Second, a resolution process may not provide the greatest return to the United States without a financial assessment. In other words, putting A.I.G. into the receivership process may diminish its value and require yet further government support. In particular, if A.I.G. is put into the resolution process, it may render worthless the billions of dollars in equity currently attributable to A.I.G.'s common stock (although that may be in part attributable to market expectations that the government would willingly take a haircut on its debt) and cut off A.I.G.'s healthier subsidiaries from any access to private-sector capital markets.

The third disadvantage lies in the political ramifications. Does the Obama administration really want the headache of taking full control of A.I.G. and the charges of socialism that would come with it?

In the end, I admit that this is a bit of a thought experiment and that the government is unlikely to (or should) take these steps, because the process of dealing with the company appears to be working on an acceptable, if not optimal, level. But plotting an A.I.G. receivership also reflects some of the problems and advantages of the new resolution process.

At a minimum, the government should likely acknowledge reality and designate A.I.G. as a systemically significant nonbank financial company under the new financial regulations. But even here, I acknowledge that such a designation may make the market increasingly leery of A.I.G. and foreclose its ability to effectively recover.

Still, as the process with A.I.G. unfolds, this designation and resolution option is one that government regulators should keep in mind if the company's financial situation significantly deteriorates. At least, it is an option that should be debated as to its merits and deficits. The government owes it to the taxpayers to keep all of its options open.

– Steven M. Davidoff

Wall Street Roundup: Bonus brouhaha. How AIG dodged the bullet

July 23, 2010 | 

NY Fed names Dahlgren head of bank supervision

By Kristina Cooke

NEW YORK | Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:46pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve Bank of New York named Sarah Dahlgren, its point person on its holdings in bailed-out insurer AIG, as the head of bank supervision, it said on Friday.

Goldman Sachs Said to Give AIG-Hedging List to Investigators

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. told U.S. investigators which counterparties it used to hedge the risk that American International Group Inc. would fail, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

The list was sought by panels reviewing the beneficiaries of New York-based AIG's $182.3 billion government bailout, said the people, who declined to be identified because the information is private. Goldman Sachs, which received $12.9 billion after the 2008 rescue tied to contracts with the insurer, has said it didn't need AIG to be rescued because it was hedged against the firm's failure.

“We want to know the identity of those parties, partly just to know where American taxpayer dollars went, but partly to assess Goldman's claim,” said Elizabeth Warren , chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, in a Senate hearing this week. “We cannot evaluate the credibility of their claim that they had nothing at stake one way or the other in the AIG bailout.”

Warren's panel and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, both of which are reviewing the use of taxpayer funds in financial bailouts, received the data from New York-based Goldman Sachs, the people said. Goldman Sachs had rebuffed a May request from the Congressional Oversight Panel for the names of counterparties, according to a document provided to lawmakers.

Goldman Sachs has provided data to Warren's panel and “to the extent that they have other questions, we are more than happy to provide them with the information,” Lucas van Praag , a Goldman Sachs spokesman, said yesterday in a statement. “We reached out to them” earlier this week, he said.

‘A Welcome Change'

Peter Jackson , a spokesman for the oversight panel, said that Goldman Sachs's “apparent willingness to cooperate fully is a welcome change from their previous unwillingness to disclose details of the taxpayer assistance they received.”

AIG's rescue was designed to prevent a wider financial collapse. Banks including Goldman Sachs bought $62.1 billion in insurance on mortgage-linked securities from AIG. To protect itself, Goldman Sachs bought credit-default swaps that would've paid out in the event of an AIG bankruptcy, Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar has said.

When asked in March 2009 which firms sold Goldman Sachs the protection, Viniar said it was “really all of the large financial institutions” in and outside the U.S.

Goldman Sachs had $10 billion of exposure to AIG when the insurer was rescued in September 2008, offset by $7.5 billion of collateral and swaps, Viniar said. The hedges were one reason that Goldman wouldn't accept anything less than full payment on the guarantees it purchased from AIG, he said.

Backdoor Bailout

The AIG rescue has been called a “backdoor bailout” of financial firms because banks were fully reimbursed on $62.1 billion in securities that had plunged in value.

Goldman Sachs provided the information to the Congressional Oversight Panel after the Senate Finance committee took up the cause this week, said a person with knowledge of the events. Lawmakers should use a subpoena to compel Goldman Sachs, if needed, Senator Charles Grassley said at a July 21 hearing.

“Why shouldn't the public know who these ultimate beneficiaries of taxpayers' support actually are?” Grassley said.

The Iowa Republican's office is “working with Goldman Sachs and the Congressional Oversight Panel to resolve the issue,” said Jill Kozeny , a spokeswoman Grassley, in an e-mail statement.

Congress created the oversight panel in 2008 to oversee Treasury Department activities in stabilizing the economy and the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

To contact the reporters on this story: Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net ; Jesse Westbrook in Washington at jwestbrook1@bloomberg.net .

Local Commissioners say 'scare' over mine hurting ag producers

The Yerington/Anaconda mine prompts divergent opinions from local residents, and that topic prompted quite a bit of discussion during the board comments portion of last Thursday's Lyon County Commissioner meeting.

Commissioner Don Tibbals initially brought up the subject, asking if he had read past meeting minutes correctly when they said that Hunewill is stepping down from a mine committee.

"There are a lot of problems coming along up there (at mine site), "and I want you to stay on it (mine representative)," Tibbals said.

Hunewill, who has been a representative on mine issues for much of her almost 12 years on the board, said she wasn't stepping down from any committee related to the mine, adding that she's been involved with the issue too long to quit.

Besides attending mine meetings as a representative of the county, Hunewill also serves as president of the Mason Valley Environmental Committee, which is a watchdog group that keeps an eye on the mine reclamation situation.

Later in the discussion, Hunewill said the EPA, which has the lead regulatory position at the Yerington/Anaconda mine, "at times don't like what I say," explaining that she'd received an e-mail from Mike Montgomery, an assistant director in the EPA's Region 9 Superfund office, regarding a comment she made at a prior meeting that the mine cleanup would be better off if the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection had kept the lead role.

Hunewill said she hopes another joint meeting with EPA mine officials, and involving the county commission and Yerington City Council, could be held soon to address current concerns and rumors, and she said she would ask interim county manager Jeff Page to set that meeting up.

Tibbals, who owns part of the mine area, including the Weed Heights townsite, said he recently heard someone with EPA was saying the entire mine site is contaminated. He said his response then was to ask why they drove their trucks all over the site, adding that they were spreading that contamination by driving around the mine and Mason Valley. He said if that's the case, they should leave the vehicles inside the fences at the mine site.

Tibbals said the stigma and scare from the mine cleanup is hurting the local area and economy, especially the agricultural economy. He noted, for one, he had quite a few vacancies with homes at Weed Heights, with five tenants moving the prior week.

Hunewill also cited the high number of foreclosures in Lyon County; while Tibbals said, "They're putting us out of business," continuing that local farmers have said the situation with the mine has hurt their product sales.

"They'll kill the entire Mason Valley if they don't quit it. It's not right," Tibbals said.

"We need to take a stand."

Tibbals also complained about a mine technical meeting that was taking place that day in Reno, saying it should be in Yerington, that it wasn't fair to local residents, and that no one was representing Mason Valley there.

He also complained about some of the recent work being done at the mine, such as demolishing the administration building, hauling away tires he said were going to Lake Powell and closing an electrical substation.

Commission Chairman Joe Mortensen questioned the mine's status with Superfund, if it was listed.

Hunewill said the site is officially a Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), since its Section 106 designation (the same as that given for the former Helms Pit that now is known as the Sparks Marina, Hunewill said) comes under CERCLA, giving the EPA regulatory authority.

However, she noted the mine isn't on the National Priorities Listing (NPL), which county and city officials have opposed, and thus isn't eligible for "Superfund" dollars used for long-term cleanups.

The EPA has proposed that the Arimetco portion of the mine be placed on the NPL, since with that mining company in bankruptcy court, there isn't a funding source now for the cleanup of the Arimetco-owned assets and property.

The EPA can use CERCLA authority to conduct investigations and removal actions and compel work by potentially responsible parties.

Hunewill noted the Superfund designation, and some negative publicity about the mine, has hurt local farmers, in particular onion producers.

Group Says State Fails To Protect Water

Thursday, 07/22/10 7:34am

The Next US Climate Strategy: Celebrate the EPA

Alex Steffen , 23 Jul 10

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Grassley Tries to Address EPA Overreach on Agriculture
07/22/2010
NAFB News Service

  Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says he wants the EPA to stop treating agriculture like second-class citizens. Grassley is joining Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns to cosponsor legislation that would expedite a decision by the EPA to exempt milk containers from regulations initially intended for oil spills. He says it's just another example of EPA overreach – especially when it comes to ag. Grassley notes dairy farmers are already struggling and adding burdensome, unnecessary regulations would put many of them in a precarious position – or even put them out of business. What's more- he says forcing farmers to make unnecessary modifications to their operations could easily increase prices for consumers at the grocery store.

According to Grassley – it defies common sense that the EPA would even consider treating milk like oil. But despite indications in January 2009 that the EPA would exempt milk storage from Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure regulations – they have yet to make a final rule. The legislation Grassley is co-sponsoring would require the EPA to finalize the proposed rule to exempt milk containers within 30 days and would delay EPA fines or other compliance penalties against milk containers until EPA makes a decision on the proposed exemption.

Grassley is also leading an effort to keep the EPA from placing further economic pressure on rural America if the agency would choose to impose more stringent regulations on dust. The Iowa Senator is concerned a draft policy assessment on particulate matter – in which the EPA staff concluded the administrator could either retain the current standards on particulate matter or make them more stringent – puts the EPA one step closer to imposing more unnecessary regulations on farmers.

I'm just glad not to be a pest control operator

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Mining Association Sues EPA, Corps of Engineers Over Coal Permits
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The National Mining Association says the federal agencies are obstructing the permitting process.

The National Mining Association Tuesday announced it is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for allegedly obstructing the coal mine permitting process in Central Appalachia.

The NMA filed the suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a news release from the association.

In the suit, the association claims the two agencies circumvented public notice and commenting requirements in the coal mine permitting process.

"NMA members' efforts to navigate this unlawful process and obtain reasonable and predictable permit terms have been unsuccessful, leaving us no choice but to challenge the EPA and Corps policy in court," association President and CEO Hal Quinn said in the news release. "Detailed agency guidance is not a valid substitute for lawful rule making based on public notice and comment. The agencies' continued abuse of the law to impose arbitrary standards on mining operations, state agencies and other federal regulatory bodies threatens the entire region with further economic misery and stagnant employment."

The association alleges in the suit that the EPA and the Corps violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, according to the news release. The agencies disregarded, "explicit requirements for public comment and formal rule making procedures."

The suit further alleges that the EPA usurped powers granted to state and other federal agencies and has used arbitrary and capricious benchmarks for assessing water quality.

As a result, the agencies have placed a "de facto moratorium" on coal mining that is harming NMA member companies, the news release states.

According to the NMA, nearly 18,000 jobs and more than 80 small businesses have been jeopardized as a result of the agencies' actions.

"The Corps is allowing EPA to impose unilateral control over coal mine permits throughout Appalachia, imposing a moratorium on jobs, energy production and the economic future of communities in the region," Quinn said in a news release. "The faulty science at the heart of this policy serves no environmental good. These actions must be held to the same standard required of all substantive rules."

Copyright 2010 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Coal companies sue EPA over mine permit delays

Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:

* Mining companies file suit against EPA

* Charge agency is obstructing mine permits

* EPA says action consistent with law

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) - The National Mining Association, which represents most major U.S. coal mining companies, on Tuesday filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency, saying it was unlawfully obstructing permits for coal mining operations in Central Appalachia.

EPA's delaying of mountaintop mining permits has jeopardized thousands of jobs and supply of a fuel vital to meeting national electric power needs, said the lawsuit, filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The NMA suit against EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends they have circumvented requirements for public notice and comment on federal statutes and ignored calls for "peer-reviewed science" as part of "a deliberate policy to substitute agency 'guidance' for formal rulemaking."

A spokeswoman said EPA is reviewing the suit, and added: "EPA's mining guidance is fully consistent with the law and the best available science and will help ensure that Americans living in coal country don't have to choose between a healthy environment for their families and the jobs they need to support them."

Since the Obama administration came into office, the EPA has put almost 200 permits in Appalachia for surface, or mountaintop, mining on hold for "enhanced review." That sparked complaints from mining companies that it was aimed at banning the technique, in which mines are dug directly into the side of mountains and debris is discarded in springs and rivers.

"EPA has usurped authorities clearly granted to the states and other federal agencies and has used technical benchmarks for assessing water quality that are both arbitrary and capricious," the NMA suit said.

"Detailed agency guidance is not a valid substitute for lawful rulemaking based on public notice and comment," NMA president and chief executive Hal Quinn said in a statement.

"The agencies' continued abuse of the law to impose arbitrary standards on mining operations, state agencies and other federal regulatory bodies threatens the entire region with further economic misery and stagnant employment."

The NMA said EPA's action resulted in a de facto moratorium on coal mining "that is irreparably harming NMA's member companies, the welfare of coal communities and the economy."

It said a May 21 report by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority staff stated nearly 18,000 new and existing jobs and more than 80 small businesses are jeopardized by the policy EPA and the Corps have applied to the 190 permits still awaiting action in mid-May. (Reporting by Steve James; Editing by Gary Hill)

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Tenth Circuit gets ministerial exemption right, appellate procedure wrong

A decision from the Tenth Circuit last week , dealing with the ministerial exemption to employment discrimination laws, got the jurisdictionality question exactly right, holding that it determines "whether the First Amendment bars [that plaintiff's] claims," which is a merits question and not a question of judicial subject matter jurisdiction. (H/T: Christopher Lund , from a debate on the Law and Religion listserv). Unfortunately, it and the parties seem to have botched an issue of appellate procedure (although with no harm or effect on the outcome).

Sued by a former employee of violating Title VII, the ADEA, and the Equal Pay Act, the Diocese raised the ministerial exemption on a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court converted that to a 12(b)(6), then to a motion for summary judgment when it considered submitted affidavits beyond the pleadings. The district court granted summary judgment on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction on state claims. When the plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling, the Diocese filed a cross-appeal, insisting that the district court erred by converting the motion from a jurisdictional one to a merits one.

Relying on prior circuit precedent and a decision from the Third Circuit, the court held that the ministerial exemption from Title VII, like the broader "Church Autonomy Doctrine," serves as a "barrier to the success of the plaintiff's claims," but does not affect the court's adjudicative authority. The court likened the ministerial exemption to executive qualified immunity from constitutional claims, which similarly defeats claims on the merits without depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case. The court's decision and explanation are spot-on.

The discussion on the listserv (which Chris has forwarded to me) has turned to whether the ministerial exemption (and church autonomy generally) should be characterized as "jurisdictional." My argument is that it is jurisdictional, but not in the sense that many people use the term. The exemption, properly understood, does not limit the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate (to hear and resolve the case). Instead, it limits the jurisdiction (the authority) of Congress to legislate--what we can call prescriptive or legislative jurisdiction/authority. The ministerial exemption is a First Amendment doctrine and any attempt by Congress to legislate in derogation of the exemption would be unconstitutional and any such law would be invalid. That is, the First Amendment has imposed a limit on Congress' prescriptive authority to create legal rules that regulate or prohibit certain employment by the Church as to certain employees. Thus, the plaintiff's attempt to sue the Diocese under federal law fails because there is no valid enforceable legal rule to be enforced, because the First Amendment limits the scope of existent federal law. That failure is on the merits; federal law does not prohibit the conduct of which the Church is accused by this ministerial employee. But this does not affect the court's authority to hear and resolve a case that, although unsuccessful, plainly arises under federal law (in the sense of asserting a right existing because of federal law). This conflation of adjudicative and prescriptive jurisdiction is at the heart of the current circuit split over the ministerial exemption. And it is at the heart of much jurisdiction/merits confusion.

On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit seems to have made a mistake of appellate procedure. The court allowed the Diocese to cross-appeal to argue that the ministerial exemption is properly understood as a limit on the district court's adjudicative jurisdiction and that the 12(b)(1) should have been granted. But I am not sure that a cross-appeal was proper or necessary here. The general rule is that a party only can appeal a judgment or order if it is "aggrieved" by a judgment that is adverse to its interests. Winning on grounds different than the ones urged in the district court does not provide the basis for a cross-appeal. A prevailing party can argue any grounds that appear in the record in support of the favorable judgment, without a cross-appeal.

Moreover, no cross-appeal is required (or permitted) when a district court has resolved the case in the defendant's favor on the merits but the defendant wants to urge a jurisdictional dismissal. Because subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, the prevailing party can argue that as a different basis for affirming the judgment. That clearly is the case here--the district court rejected the claims on the merits, while the Diocese wanted to prevail on jurisdictional grounds. No cross-appeal should have been necessary. This case is somewhat unusual because the same argument--ministerial exemption--is being used both to convert the lower-court judgment and to defend it. But that should not make a difference. The point is that the Diocese was arguing to an appellate court that the trial court reached the merits in a case in which it (according to the Diocese) lacked subject matter jurisdiction. No cross-appeal should be required.

Interesting, a cross-appeal is required in the converse situation--where the district court dismisses a case without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds and the prevailing defendant wants to convert that dismissal to one on the merits, which would be with prejudice and would have res judicata effect. Such an argument is deemed to change or modify the nature of the judgment, which requires cross-appeal. Of course, had the Diocese prevailed on its cross-claim here, it would have converted a judgment having res judicata effect into one not having res judicata effect. As the case stood, the district court's ruling precludes the plaintiff from refiling her federal claims. Had the dismissal of the federal claims been on jurisdictional grounds, on the other hand, the plaintiff could have refiled those claims in state court. In other words, the Diocese's argument, while allowed on cross-appeal, actually would have put it in a less-advantageous position in this case.

The with-prejudice/without-prejudice line is an overlooked aspect of jurisdiction/merits confusion. By trying to characterize lots of issues under federal statutes as jurisdictional, defendants actually set themselves up for having to relitigate these claims in state court (where there is concurrent jurisdiction). Here, because the court treated the ministerial exemption as a merits issue, the Diocese does not have to worry about any of the plaintiff's federal claims again. You would think that is a benefit the Diocese would not have wanted to give away.

CONTACT:

Stacy Kika

Kika.stacy@epa.gov

202-564-0906

202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 21, 2010

EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Proposed Stormwater Rule

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting small businesses and municipalities to nominate representatives to provide input on a proposed stormwater rule. The rule would strengthen the national stormwater program under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and focus on stormwater discharges from developed sites, such as subdivisions, roadways, industrial facilities, and commercial buildings or shopping centers.

Selected participants would provide input to a Small Business Advocacy Review panel, which will consist of officials from EPA, the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is establishing this panel because the rule could have a significant economic impact on small entities. The representatives will provide input on how EPA can minimize the potential burden on small entities of the proposed regulation. Nominations must be received by August 4, 2010.

More information about participating in the panel: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/stormwater.htm

More information about the rulemaking: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking

R251

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS 

City's lawsuit blasts EPA river cleanup plan

Associated Press - July 21, 2010 12:24 PM ET

POST FALLS, Idaho (AP) - The northern Idaho city of Post Falls and the Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court over a plan to clean pollution in the Spokane River.

In the lawsuit, the city and sewer board say the EPA violated the Clean Water Act in May by approving the interstate cleanup plan, which was developed by the Washington Department of Ecology. The city and sewer board contend the plan transfers a disproportionate burden of cleaning Washington's water onto Idaho citizens.

The Coeur d'Alene Press reports both the EPA and Post Falls officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley says his city also plans to sue the EPA, and the lawsuit will likely be consolidated with the one brought by Post Falls.

Information from: Coeur d'Alene Press, http://www.cdapress.com

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

COMMISSIONS OF ESSENTIAL PRODUCTS ADMINISTRATION (EPA) (TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part 2 —Financial Crime-Free Communities Support Program

§ 5355 . Authorization of appropriations, Title 15. Chapter 1 - § 1 . Trusts, etc. TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 9 § 9. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure. The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 8 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

ex officio de palatine per curiam.

As our school partnerships develop, we are keen to seek ways of extending our support to some of the many grass-roots community organisations providing invaluable support to local residents. esse quam videri

State Water Board to Take Action on 1,700 Severely Polluted Waterways
New List Reveals Few Californians Enjoy "Fishable, Swimmable, Drinkable" Waterways

Developer Held Liable for Residential Cleanup Costs

By ELIZABETH BANICKI 

     (CN) - A real estate developer that bought a contaminated tract of wetlands in Huntington Beach, Calif., is responsible for the cleanup costs of neighboring residential areas, the 9th Circuit ruled, even though it sold the land before getting billed by the state.
      California's Department of Toxic Substances Control had sued Hearthside Residential Corp., seeking reimbursement for the costs of cleaning up residential property near Hearthside's land, both of which were contaminated with the toxic substance polychlorinated biphenyls.
      Hearthside bought its Fieldstone property knowing that it was contaminated. The state regulatory agency told Hearthstone that if it was going to clean up its own land, it also had to clean up the contaminated areas surrounding it, since its land was the source of contamination.
      Hearthside refused, choosing instead to clean its own land and sell it before the department could react. The state agency hired another company to clean up the neighboring lands and billed Hearthside for it.
      U.S. District Judge Valerie Fairbank found Hearthside responsible because it owned the land when the department sought reimbursement, even though Hearthstone later sold the property.
      A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit agreed, ruling that the land's "owner and operator" when cleanup costs are incurred is liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
      "If Hearthside's argument were adopted as law, then an owner could sell a recently cleaned piece of property to an innocent buyer one day before the statute of limitations runs, with the result that the new owner would bear full cleanup liability," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the Pasadena-based panel.
      The ruling marks the first time the court has decided when owner status under CERCLA is determined. 

The Progressive Movement: Is it the nexus of eugenicist, racist, xenophobic, fascist, and elitist traits?

Check Out The Funny Hats AIG's Fire Wardens Have To Wear

AIG lives in one of the oldest buildings in New York, a building they very much hope to keep around for many more years to come for many reasons, but mainly because AIG is an insurer .

If the world's biggest, most troubled insurer burned down it would actually be a cruel twist of ironicly fitting fate, but it would be terrible.

Luckily, AIG is well guarded against a fire because they not only have a fantastic sprinkler system and regular fire drills but they also have Fire Wardens.

AIG's fire wardens are in charge of knowing AIG's Fire Safety Emergency Action Plan (FS/EAP) and because they have such an important job, they get hats. No vests, but they get these dorky, red hats that just happen to be the perfect size to place numbers inside for gambling purposes.

It's good to know AIG takes fire safety so seriously. Imagine if they had to buy a new building AND to repay TARP AND to come to the government for help after they just got in trouble with Feinberg for paying their execs too much. Hats to the rescue!

Groups urge hearings on Oberstar water bill

Submitted by Journal Staff on July 21, 2010 - 10:25am.

Concerned groups say multiple interests affected

NWCA Staff Report

Groups that have been battling to defeat U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar's federal water bill since 2007 are calling for hearings and open meetings on what is being considered by many to be the largest federal power grab in the nation's history.

The bill (H.R. 5088) is being referred to as the America's Commitment to Clean Water Act, introduced by Oberstar to replace his previous version, the Clean Water Restoration Act. Oberstar chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has sole jurisdiction of the bill.

The ranking minorities of the House Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Small Business recently signed a joint letter to the committee chairs asking for hearings and other public input opportunities on the bill. Last year, according to a news release from the National Water and Conservation Alliance, Oberstar made a public commitment to Alaska Rep. Don Young for hearings on a new bill, but an Oberstar aide recently was quoted as saying there would be no hearings.

Former International Falls resident Don Parmeter, St. Paul, and Kathy McDonald of Vancouver, Wash., are co-chairs of the National Water and Conservation Alliance, established last year to develop and promote local and regional alternatives to the federal proposal.

The bill, if approved, would overturn two U.S. Supreme Court decisions (SWANCC, 2001, and Rapanos, 2006) by replacing the word 'navigable' with 'waters of the U.S.' in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

According to the NWCA, waters of the U.S., as prescribed in Oberstar's new bill, would include:

• All waters that are currently used, were used in the past or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide

• All interstate and international waters, including interstate and international wetlands

• All other waters, including intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds

• All impoundments and tributaries of these waters

The definition would also include uses that affect these waters, generally considered 'non-point' sources such as land use and atmospheric deposition.

Parmeter said state and local solutions to water quality and other environmental problems are better, faster and cheaper, and have proven effective in Oberstar's own district, as well as in other parts of the country. "This top down, command and control mentality from Washington is killing this country and alienating people from every walk of life," said Parmeter. McDonald said "If we're going to build better communities, it needs to be done from the bottom up, not from the top down. She added, "Mr. Oberstar's bill will remove flexibility and take power away from local people and state and local elected officials."

Parmeter, a former pollution control engineer who lived in Oberstar's congressional district for 30 years, said there is virtually no support in the district for the legislation.

"This kind of expansive federal legislation has traditionally been aggressively opposed in the 8th District of Minnesota by citizens of all political persuasions," said Parmeter. Moreover, according to Parmeter, the legislation flies in the face of a 1995 state water rights statute that was authored by prominent democrats in Oberstar's district, including the former speaker of the House, former chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, and three former candidates for governor.

"This is not what any rational person would call constitutional, representative government at work," said Parmeter.

Chuck Cushman, founder and executive director of the American Land Rights Association, said his organization has sent out several million e-mails over the last few years, and plans to step up the pace in the coming months to help prevent passage of the bill.

"This bill potentially affects all water and land in the country, and we have to pull out all stops to kill it," said Cushman. "It's the biggest threat to property rights that I have seen in my 35 year career, and it's being forced on an unsuspecting American public under the guise of clean water."

In addition to formal public hearings, including field hearings, the groups will urge members of Congress, especially members of the Committees on Transportation, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Small Business, to hold town hall meetings, listening sessions or congressional forums on the issue in their districts.

"The August recess will be a good time for members of Congress to do this, and a good opportunity for average citizens to hold their members accountable on this issue," said Cushman.

Fiscal Year 2011 Climate Program Office

The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 07/20/2010 . If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.

If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.

Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.

Eligible Applicants

Others (see text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility" for clarification)

Additional Information on Eligibility:

Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible to receive assistance under this notice.

Agency Name

Department of Commerce

Description

Changing climate confronts society with significant economic, health, safety, and national security challenges. NOAA has important responsibilities in conducting observations, research, prediction, and information management for the purpose of understanding and responding to climate and global change. The NOAA Climate Program Office (CPO) manages the competitive research programs in which NOAA funds high-priority climate science to advance understanding of Earth's climate system and its atmospheric, oceanic, land, and snow and ice components. This science contributes to knowledge about how climate variability and change affect our health, economy, and well-being. The CPO supports research that is conducted in regions across the United States, at national and international scales, and globally. The CPO also provides strategic guidance and oversight for the agency's climate science and services programs. In this connection, the CPO is helping lead the development of a proposed NOAA Climate Service; details about the proposed Service can be found at (http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html). The CPO is in the process of restructuring its grants programs that will go into effect with this announcement of opportunity. The grants activities are now organized within four Programs: Climate Observations and Monitoring, Earth System Science, Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections, and Climate and Societal Interactions. In addition, the CPO announces an opportunity in FY 2011 that cuts across these four Programs to deal with Improving NOAA's Climate Services for the Coastal Zone. In FY 2011, approximately $21 million will be available for new awards pending budget appropriations. It is anticipated that most awards will be at a funding level between $50,000 and $300,000 per year, with some exceptions for larger awards ($600K-$700K). Investigators are highly encouraged to visit the CPO Web site (http://www.climate.noaa.gov) for general program information prior to submitting applications.

Link to Full Announcement

CLICK ON FULL OPPORTUNITY BUTTON LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE.

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

Steve Drescher
Policy Advisor
For application download issues.

Synopsis Modification History

There are currently no modifications for this opportunity.

“The Two United States and the Law”

July 20, 2010 by Capt. Karl

By Howard Freeman

Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III's government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver!

The United States of America was made up of a union of fifty sovereign States; a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its Citizens lived in one of the fifty Union States, and its laws were based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law.

Less than one hundred years after we became a Union of States, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate Nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by way of the 14th Amendment.

Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both Nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are: Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at Law, (2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:

(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone
else. Law does not compel performance. Today's so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.

By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system.

Our Present Commercial System of “Law” and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection

The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of the fifty States).

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable
debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin was in the Union of the Sovereign States.

The same national Congress rules the Continental United States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.

With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the Republic.

The answer follows:

Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask, “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?”

Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of “legalese.” Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no longer needed to pay their debts, that
they were now “privileged” to discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.

From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

Since all contracts since Roosevelt's time have the colorable consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]

Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied CONSENT, rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so- called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit” offered to him by the Federal United States – EXCEPT – those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207.

When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp stating “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207? is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract.

Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

ADDENDUM

U.C.C. 1-207; Sufficiency of reservation.

Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of all our rights.”

The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly is used in place of “express” to
indicate that the reservation must not only be “express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.

The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” … U.C.C. 1-207:7  Effect of reservation of rights.

The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ….

U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date

U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.

The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code ….

A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law. … “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”

EXAMPLE

Your Honor, my use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207? above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Section 308, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government — national, state and local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.

American Chemical Society Webinar focuses on federal aid for sustainable manufacturing

July 22nd, 2010

News media and others interested in the chemical sciences are invited to join the next in a series of American Chemical Society (ACS) Webinars™, focusing on federal resources that support sustainable manufacturing.

Scheduled for Thursday, July 29, from 2 - 3 p.m. EDT, the free ACS Webinar™ will feature Morgan Barr, with the the U.S. Department of Commerce's Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative, speaking on Department of Commerce Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative - Government Resources that Support Sustainable Manufacturing.
ACS Webinars™ connect you with subject experts and global thought leaders in chemical sciences, management and business to address current topics of interest to scientific and engineering professionals. Each webinar includes a short presentation followed by a Q & A session.

News media and scientists can tune into the conference without charge, but must register in advance.

Barr's topics will include:

• What the U.S. Department of Commerce and other agencies are doing to help companies become more sustainable and competitive
  

• Government resources and incentives available to help your company in its sustainability efforts
  

• Examples of chemically related companies that have successfully implemented sustainable manufacturing practices

Barr is an international economist at the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration. She has been working on the Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative for three years, leading the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) sustainable metrics toolkit project. Barr also has been as working on the Sustainable Business Clearinghouse, the regional tour program, and leading a project to develop a training module for manufacturers on the basics of sustainable manufacturing practices. She has a Master of Arts in International Affairs and an M.B.A. from The George Washington University in Washington, DC.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Editorial: Out of sight

var collab_title = 'Editorial: Out of sight';
Published: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.

At first blush, the EPA's newly announced plan for "cleaning-up" Gainesville's only Superfund hazardous waste sight seems like a classic example of "out of sight, out of mind."

var enableForum = "false"; #forumnumcom h6 {width:250px;float:left;margin:18px 10px 0 0;padding:10px 0 15px;border-bottom:none;border-top:9px solid #888}

Instead of digging up the contaminated soil at the old Cabot-Koppers site and hauling it away, the EPA proposes that the soil be permanently contained in a roughly 32-acre concrete structure extending 65 feet into the ground and topped by an impermeable roof.

The EPA wants to turn Gainesville's only Superfund hazardous waste site into a permanent hazardous waste storage facility.

The chief virtue of this plan seems to be that it will save the responsible company, Beazer East, millions of dollars. The chief drawback is, well, Gainesville is stuck with tons of contaminated soil forever.

"They're leaving behind in Gainesville a long-term maintenance issue," Chris Bird, the county's environmental protection chief, told The Sun.

Frankly, we're not surprised. For more than a quarter of a century, the EPA's attitude toward the Koppers site has seemed, at best, to be one of benign neglect. After all these years, Gainesville residents deserve better from the nation's environmental "watchdog."

That's the message city and county officials, and residents and taxpayers, need to send loud and clear when the EPA holds its public hearing on Aug. 5 at 6 p.m. at Stephen Foster Elementary.

"For the community, we'd like to see them haul this stuff out of town," Bird said.

Out of sight, out of mind isn't good enough.

EPA Study: Rivers Shouldn't Smell Like Shit

July 14, 2010 | ISSUE 46•28

WASHINGTON—A study released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that rivers should never smell like shit, noting that when naturally occurring waterways do reek of fecal matter there is "more than likely something wrong with them." "Starting from the base definition that a river is a free-flowing body of fresh water, we concluded that a shit-smelling river basically runs contradictory to that," EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. "It doesn't matter if a river stinks of human shit, animal shit, or sewage shit, 99.9 percent of the time a river should not make individuals cover their nose and mouth because of an overwhelming shit smell." The study also concluded that rivers probably shouldn't have abandoned tires in them.

Hazard mitigation plan being formulated

Churchill County and the city of Fallon have launched a planning effort to prepare a Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, and officials need public input.

Shortly, a questionnaire will be distributed to the public asking for input on local disaster mitigation and recovery needs.

The resulting plan will assess and prioritize the risks posed by natural and manmade hazards and identify ways to reduce those risks. This plan is required by the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and is a prerequisite to acquiring federal funding for mitigation or recovery from disasters.

In recent years a swarm of earthquakes rattled the western portion of the state near Churchill County, the recent levee breach occurred in Fernley and every year major wild land fires rage near Reno and throughout the state.

These emergency events demonstrate that Churchill County can experience disasters. The risks from such hazards will continue to increase as the county's population continues to grow making a mitigation plan necessary and important.

The county and city plan on submitting a draft plan to local governing boards in the spring of 2011 for their approval. The final plan will be sent to Federal Emergency Management Agency for final approval.

For additional information, to volunteer or to make comments, please contact Churchill County Emergency Manager Ron Juliff at 423-4188 or at ccem@phonewave.net .

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

NMA sues to stop Obama Administration's ‘mountaintop mining' war

The Obama Administration's so-called ‘mountaintop mining' war is using the U.S. Clean Water Act as an illegal weapon to stop the expansion of U.S. coal mining, the NMA contends.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted:  Wednesday , 21 Jul 2010

RENO, NV  - 

The National Mining Association Tuesday fired back at the Obama Administration's Appalachian coal war, filing litigation accusing federal agencies of violating their own public notification and rulemaking procedures to stop the issuance of Clean Water Permits for coal mining in many U.S. coal mining regions.

More than a year ago, the Obama Administration announced an Interagency Action Plan that used the auspices of the Clean Water Act to immediately bring to a halt permit reviews of mountaintop mining based on environmental concerns stemming from the impacts of mining on streams and watersheds.

That ruling impacted more than 200 coal mining permit and permit expansion applications that were pending when the "temporary" moratorium was declared.

The NMA lawsuit, filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, argues the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "have circumvented clear requirements for public notice and comment of a host of federal statutes and ignored calls for peer-reviewed science as part of a deliberate policy to substitute agency guidance for formal rulemaking."

The NMA lawsuit says the EPA and the Corps violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act by "disregarding explicit requirements for public comment and formal rulemaking procedures. Moreover, EPA has usurped authorities clearly granted to the state and other federal agencies and has used technical benchmarks for assessing water quality that are both arbitrary and capricious.'

Ironically, the actions of the Obama Administration to impose a de facto moratorium on new or expanded coal mining in this country have forced the NMA to utilize a number of similar complaints made by environmental NGOs when they sue federal agencies seeking to overturn mining permits.

In a statement, NMA CEO Hal Quinn accused the Corps of allowing EPA "to impose unilateral control over coal mine permits throughout Appalachia, imposing a moratorium on jobs, energy production and the economic future of communities in the region."

"Detailed agency guidance is not a valid substitute for lawful rulemaking based on public notice and comment," he noted. "The agencies' continued abuse of the law to impose arbitrary standards on mining operations, state agencies and other federal regulatory bodies threatens the entire region with further economic misery and stagnant employment."

Last December mining attorney Robert McCluskey warned that such a war on Appalachia coal could eventually alter the definitions and regulation of mine waste for both coal and hardrock mining.

State and federal governments are engaged in a significant fight to determine who makes and implements Clean Water Section 404 standards regulating Appalachian coal operations and the waste material they deposit or discharge into U.S. waters.

Historically, the Corps regulated coal mining waste discharge under Section 404.

McCluskey has suggested that the term "mountaintop mining" no longer applies to mining mountaintop for coal. Rather, any mine that requires valley fill in Central Appalachia is now considered to be mountaintop mining.

In a presentation to the Northwest Mining Association in December, McCluskey noted that every one of those valleys in Appalachia has water in it, which then puts that valley and its watershed under the jurisdiction of the CWA 404 regulations.

McCluskey and a number of miners argue that mining waste treatment systems or ponds should not be considered by federal agencies as waters of the United States.

The NMA lawsuit filed Tuesday names EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the EPA, Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, Commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as defendants.

The civil suit "challenges a series of EPA and Corps actions that have unlawfully obstructed Clean Water Act permitting processes for coal mining."

The three-agency MOU regarding mountaintop mining "substantially and illegally amend the statutory and regulatory permitting processes for coal mining that form the backbone of coal companies' expectation in planning to extract coal for our nation's power supply, particularly for those companies that require valley fills for their coal mining operations," said the NMA.

"By dramatically altering timelines and imposing new requirements in complete disregard of existing federal law and procedure, EPA and the Corps have launched a moving target in coal mining permitting that is substantially and irreparably harming NMA's coal mining members," the lawsuit claimed.

The NMA accuses the EPA of radically altering the delegation of regulatory authority over coal mining to rob the Corps and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, as well as states, of their respective statutory roles as permitting authorities and the regulators of the environmental impacts of coal mining.

"Taken together, these actions also amount to a de facto moratorium on permitting for coal mining, particularly in Central Appalachia," the mining association argues.

The NMA asked the federal court for an order vacating the Environmental Concerns Process and the Detailed Guidance from the three agencies regarding permitting of Appalachian coal mining.

The trade association also asks the Corps to reinstate and adhere to the Section 404 permit review process already codified into law "and order EPA to permit, and not exceed, the role Congress crafted for it in the Section 404 permitting process."

The Grinches Who Stole Summer

Posted on Jul 21, 2010

By Robert Scheer

It was a branding moment. With their lock-step vote against extending unemployment benefits, the Republicans are indelibly marked as not only heartless but also frivolous in their much-professed concern over the soaring national debt. Thanks to the defection of the two relatively enlightened Republican senators from Maine and the quick replacement of the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, unemployment checks that had been stalled for millions of American families since early June will soon resume. But for Republicans, it has been a defining issue that will haunt the party. 

There is plenty to criticize in the Democrats' handling of this economic crisis, mostly cribbed from the GOP playbook, but once again the Republicans seem determined to prove that when it comes to social compassion, they are the worst. How can they defend having supported Republican President George W. Bush giving $180 billion to AIG but draw the line when a Democratic president seeks to spend one-fifth of that amount helping millions of victims of the crisis that AIG was so instrumental in causing? 

While holding unemployment checks hostage to demands for compensating budget cuts, Republican leaders claimed to support the extension of benefits. They rejected the argument of some on the harder ideological right that the average payment of $309 per week is the lucrative prize that keeps the unemployed from going back to work. They also conceded the obvious, that money given to the unemployed will stimulate the economy at a high multiplier effect because it is money that will be spent rather than hoarded. 

Clearly the unemployed are far more likely to spend the money they receive than would the recipients of tax cuts for the rich that the GOP leadership so blithely recommends. And as House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., was able to crow, while the Republicans demand a cut in spending to cover the costs of unemployment insurance, they make no such demand for their tax-cut proposal: “Our Republican colleagues say, `No, you have got to pay for that, but you don't have to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America' which is about 20 times as much as the unemployment insurance.”

Their excuse for separating 2.5 million families from the checks needed to keep food on the table and cover the rent is that the GOP leadership wanted to send a message, in the words of the third-ranking Republican, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, that the “federal debt has grown to an alarming level, where it is threatening the future of our children and grandchildren.” 

ed against the serious drivers of the debt, including a $700 billion military budget and a financial bailout that has cost trillions in taxpayer debt without a murmur of opposition from the GOP leadership, stonewalling on this particular issue is absurd. It would have shocked even Richard Nixon, who as president advocated a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans, and not just those who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

Few, even in the GOP leadership, would deny that the 8 million who lost their jobs due to the banking debacle were the innocent victims of reckless banking policies. “There is no debate in the Senate about whether we should pass a bill—everyone agrees that we should,” stated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “What we do not support—and we make no apologies for—is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control.”

Why no apologies for drawing the line at the expense of the victims but not when it came to bailing out the victimizers? Clearly the unemployed are the victims of forces far beyond their own control, beginning with a housing market wrecked by the Ponzi scheme of securitized mortgage debt made legal through financial deregulation that virtually all Republicans, and too many Democrats, long supported. Why is it acceptable for our government through the Federal Reserve to have bought up $1.2 trillion of those toxic debt obligations in a handout to the bankers who devised and sold them but balk at committing a tiny fraction of that spending to helping those thrown out of work?

That is the nub of it, and once again folks with a social conscience are left with a failed two-party system in which the Democrats, with much responsibility for this banking mess, must at worst be judged the lesser evil.

Bayer Schering Pharma in research pact with China's largest military hospital

20 July 2010

Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Germany, has reached a research collaboration agreement with the largest military hospital in China, The People's Liberation Army General Hospital 301, located in Beijing, to set up women's healthcare facilities.

Under the terms of the agreement, 301 Hospital will receive research funding and its scientists will be able to work at Bayer Schering Pharma's research facilities in Berlin, Germany. Bayer Schering Pharma scientists from the recently established Bayer Schering Pharma Global Drug Discovery's China innovation centre in Beijing will participate in and coordinate the research projects.

The joint research programs will initially be focused on, but not limited to, gynecological diseases. Their first project will focus on the establishment and analysis of disease models and disease understanding.

''Working together with the experts from The People's Liberation Army General Hospital will help us to bring new therapies faster to patients suffering from gynecological diseases, like endometriosis and uterine fibroids," said Prof. Andreas Busch, member of the board of management at Bayer Schering Pharma and head of global drug discovery.

301 Hospital is one of the biggest general hospitals in China and has a reputation for gynecology and obstetrics research and treatment of patients suffering from related diseases.

Prof. Guoquan Ren, head of medical management division, said,''Endometriosis and uterine fibroids are severe diseases that significantly compromise the health and quality of life of women. Joining forces will allow us to take advantage of each other's strengths which will for sure drive the research and innovation in these fields.''

Founded in 1953, 301 Hospital, with a complete range of clinical disciplines, provides one of the most comprehensive hospital facilities among military hospitals throughout China. It employs over 3,600 professionals across 12 medical specialty centres, 14 medical research centres and eight major laboratories, engaging in various key medical disciplines such as otolaryngology, orthopedics, gynecology, and gerontology, among others.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

FEDERALIST. No. 81

The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

LET US now return to the partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other, "The judicial power of the United States is" (by the plan of the convention) "to be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." 1

That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested. The reasons for it have been assigned in another place, and are too obvious to need repetition. The only question that seems to have been raised concerning it, is, whether it ought to be a distinct body or a branch of the legislature. The same contradiction is observable in regard to this matter which has been remarked in several other cases. The very men who object to the Senate as a court of impeachments, on the ground of an improper intermixture of powers, advocate, by implication at least, the propriety of vesting the ultimate decision of all causes, in the whole or in a part of the legislative body.

The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless." This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion.

But perhaps the force of the objection may be thought to consist in the particular organization of the Supreme Court; in its being composed of a distinct body of magistrates, instead of being one of the branches of the legislature, as in the government of Great Britain and that of the State. To insist upon this point, the authors of the objection must renounce the meaning they have labored to annex to the celebrated maxim, requiring a separation of the departments of power. It shall, nevertheless, be conceded to them, agreeably to the interpretation given to that maxim in the course of these papers, that it is not violated by vesting the ultimate power of judging in a PART of the legislative body. But though this be not an absolute violation of that excellent rule, yet it verges so nearly upon it, as on this account alone to be less eligible than the mode preferred by the convention. From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.

These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men. Contrary to the supposition of those who have represented the plan of the convention, in this respect, as novel and unprecedented, it is but a copy of the constitutions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and the preference which has been given to those models is highly to be commended.

It is not true, in the second place, that the Parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular States, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense than might be done by a future legislature of the United States. The theory, neither of the British, nor the State constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration. Not the least difference can be pointed out in any view of the subject.

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.

Having now examined, and, I trust, removed the objections to the distinct and independent organization of the Supreme Court, I proceed to consider the propriety of the power of constituting inferior courts, 2 and the relations which will subsist between these and the former.

The power of constituting inferior courts is evidently calculated to obviate the necessity of having recourse to the Supreme Court in every case of federal cognizance. It is intended to enable the national government to institute or AUTHORUZE, in each State or district of the United States, a tribunal competent to the determination of matters of national jurisdiction within its limits.

But why, it is asked, might not the same purpose have been accomplished by the instrumentality of the State courts? This admits of different answers. Though the fitness and competency of those courts should be allowed in the utmost latitude, yet the substance of the power in question may still be regarded as a necessary part of the plan, if it were only to empower the national legislature to commit to them the cognizance of causes arising out of the national Constitution. To confer the power of determining such causes upon the existing courts of the several States, would perhaps be as much "to constitute tribunals," as to create new courts with the like power. But ought not a more direct and explicit provision to have been made in favor of the State courts? There are, in my opinion, substantial reasons against such a provision: the most discerning cannot foresee how far the prevalency of a local spirit may be found to disqualify the local tribunals for the jurisdiction of national causes; whilst every man may discover, that courts constituted like those of some of the States would be improper channels of the judicial authority of the Union. State judges, holding their offices during pleasure, or from year to year, will be too little independent to be relied upon for an inflexible execution of the national laws. And if there was a necessity for confiding the original cognizance of causes arising under those laws to them there would be a correspondent necessity for leaving the door of appeal as wide as possible. In proportion to the grounds of confidence in, or distrust of, the subordinate tribunals, ought to be the facility or difficulty of appeals. And well satisfied as I am of the propriety of the appellate jurisdiction, in the several classes of causes to which it is extended by the plan of the convention. I should consider every thing calculated to give, in practice, an UNRESTRAINED COURSE to appeals, as a source of public and private inconvenience.

I am not sure, but that it will be found highly expedient and useful, to divide the United States into four or five or half a dozen districts; and to institute a federal court in each district, in lieu of one in every State. The judges of these courts, with the aid of the State judges, may hold circuits for the trial of causes in the several parts of the respective districts. Justice through them may be administered with ease and despatch; and appeals may be safely circumscribed within a narrow compass. This plan appears to me at present the most eligible of any that could be adopted; and in order to it, it is necessary that the power of constituting inferior courts should exist in the full extent in which it is to be found in the proposed Constitution.

These reasons seem sufficient to satisfy a candid mind, that the want of such a power would have been a great defect in the plan. Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party." Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. Though it may rather be a digression from the immediate subject of this paper, I shall take occasion to mention here a supposition which has excited some alarm upon very mistaken grounds. It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation.

It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here. A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable.

Let us resume the train of our observations. We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, "with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make."

The propriety of this appellate jurisdiction has been scarcely called in question in regard to matters of law; but the clamors have been loud against it as applied to matters of fact. Some well-intentioned men in this State, deriving their notions from the language and forms which obtain in our courts, have been induced to consider it as an implied supersedure of the trial by jury, in favor of the civil-law mode of trial, which prevails in our courts of admiralty, probate, and chancery. A technical sense has been affixed to the term "appellate," which, in our law parlance, is commonly used in reference to appeals in the course of the civil law. But if I am not misinformed, the same meaning would not be given to it in any part of New England. There an appeal from one jury to another, is familiar both in language and practice, and is even a matter of course, until there have been two verdicts on one side. The word "appellate," therefore, will not be understood in the same sense in New England as in New York, which shows the impropriety of a technical interpretation derived from the jurisprudence of any particular State. The expression, taken in the abstract, denotes nothing more than the power of one tribunal to review the proceedings of another, either as to the law or fact, or both. The mode of doing it may depend on ancient custom or legislative provision (in a new government it must depend on the latter), and may be with or without the aid of a jury, as may be judged advisable. If, therefore, the re-examination of a fact once determined by a jury, should in any case be admitted under the proposed Constitution, it may be so regulated as to be done by a second jury, either by remanding the cause to the court below for a second trial of the fact, or by directing an issue immediately out of the Supreme Court.

But it does not follow that the re-examination of a fact once ascertained by a jury, will be permitted in the Supreme Court. Why may not it be said, with the strictest propriety, when a writ of error is brought from an inferior to a superior court of law in this State, that the latter has jurisdiction of the fact as well as the law? It is true it cannot institute a new inquiry concerning the fact, but it takes cognizance of it as it appears upon the record, and pronounces the law arising upon it. 3 This is jurisdiction of both fact and law; nor is it even possible to separate them. Though the common-law courts of this State ascertain disputed facts by a jury, yet they unquestionably have jurisdiction of both fact and law; and accordingly when the former is agreed in the pleadings, they have no recourse to a jury, but proceed at once to judgment. I contend, therefore, on this ground, that the expressions, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," do not necessarily imply a re-examination in the Supreme Court of facts decided by juries in the inferior courts.

The following train of ideas may well be imagined to have influenced the convention, in relation to this particular provision. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (it may have been argued) will extend to causes determinable in different modes, some in the course of the COMMON LAW, others in the course of the CIVIL LAW. In the former, the revision of the law only will be, generally speaking, the proper province of the Supreme Court; in the latter, the re-examination of the fact is agreeable to usage, and in some cases, of which prize causes are an example, might be essential to the preservation of the public peace. It is therefore necessary that the appellate jurisdiction should, in certain cases, extend in the broadest sense to matters of fact. It will not answer to make an express exception of cases which shall have been originally tried by a jury, because in the courts of some of the States ALL CAUSES are tried in this mode 4 ; and such an exception would preclude the revision of matters of fact, as well where it might be proper, as where it might be improper. To avoid all inconveniencies, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

This view of the matter, at any rate, puts it out of all doubt that the supposed ABOLITION of the trial by jury, by the operation of this provision, is fallacious and untrue. The legislature of the United States would certainly have full power to provide, that in appeals to the Supreme Court there should be no re-examination of facts where they had been tried in the original causes by juries. This would certainly be an authorized exception; but if, for the reason already intimated, it should be thought too extensive, it might be qualified with a limitation to such causes only as are determinable at common law in that mode of trial.

The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; that this appellate jurisdiction does, in no case, ABOLISH the trial by jury; and that an ordinary degree of prudence and integrity in the national councils will insure us solid advantages from the establishment of the proposed judiciary, without exposing us to any of the inconveniences which have been predicted from that source.

PUBLIUS.

1 . Article 3, sec. I.
2 . This power has been absurdly represented as intended to abolish all the county courts in the several States, which are commonly called inferior courts. But the expressions of the Constitution are, to constitute "tribunals INFERIOR TO THE SUPREME COURT"; and the evident design of the provision is to enable the institution of local courts, subordinate to the Supreme, either in States or larger districts. It is ridiculous to imagine that county courts were in contemplation.
3 . This word is composed of JUS and DICTIO, juris dictio or a speaking and pronouncing of the law.
4 . I hold that the States will have concurrent jurisdiction with the subordinate federal judicatories, in many cases of federal cognizance, as will be explained in my next paper.

Originating out of the Latin word "ius" and "dicere" meaning "law" and "to speak" respectively, jurisdiction is the area of operation of a legal entity. Such jurisdiction could be legal, notional, abstract, or concrete with clearly defined geographical boundaries. In essence jurisdiction refers to the capabilities, powers, and responsibilities to administer justice within the particular sphere of operation entrusted.

Substances of jurisdiction are derived from public international law, constitutional law, and above all; conflict of laws. One of the common features of modern governance is delimiting the authoritative domains of executive, legislative, and judiciary; the three pillars of democratic set up.

Ordinarily however the term jurisdiction is most widely applied in the judicial spheres. It denotes both authoritative and geographical extent of power and control of the respective court. Three basic principles of jurisdiction guiding the judiciary are persona; territorial; and subject matters.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the authority and control over persons regardless of their respective locations. Territorial jurisdiction refers to the area or the space within which the orders passed are binding and conclusive. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to such subjects that are involved in a judicial proceeding. For instance; subject matters within the federal list shall be dealt with by the Federal Court or Supreme Court. On the other hand those included in state lists shall be adjudicated by the State Courts.

In the similar veins the jurisdiction of the court is classified as exclusive and concurrent. Exclusive jurisdiction refers to unabated and unshared control over some territory, subject or personnel. Concurrent or shared jurisdiction refers to the fact one or more courts have equal powers on the subject, territory, or personnel concerned. In case of the courts having concurrent jurisdiction, parties may engage in forum shopping. They tend to bring the case to the particular court which they feel would adjudicate in their favor.

Generally speaking; jurisdiction can be territorial, provincial, national, or international. For instance; United Nations Organization has the International Court that deals with matters relating to International jurisdiction such as the maritime boundaries or the continental shelf. In addition the international forums also deal with specific issues that relate to two or more countries like the treaties, customs, and conventions.

Yet there is a major difference between other forms of jurisdiction such as territorial, provincial or national with the international jurisdiction. In case of international jurisdiction obedience by contestant parties is purely voluntary while in all other cases it is mandatory.

Using law.jrank.org the popular site search engine could turn out to be the one point solution for the people that are trying to find out more about jurisdiction . Whether it is territorial, national, or international jurisdiction, the search engine can lead the viewers to a site that offers authenticated updated information on such legal issues .

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Veto likely on bills blocking EPA regs

President Barack Obama would veto legislation suspending the EPA's plans to write new climate change rules, a White House official said on Friday.

Coal-state Democrats, led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W. Va), Reps. Rick Boucher (Va.) and Nick Rahall (W. Va), are trying to limit the federal government's ability to control greenhouse gases from power plants.

The coal-state proposals, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency's authority for two years, would undercut what is widely seen as Obama's alternative climate policy, now that Congress has punted on cap-and-trade legislation for the year. The Obama aide said the proposals won't win the president's signature if they managed to pass on Capitol Hill. Rockefeller's bill is expected to reach the Senate floor at some point this year.

In a press release on Friday, Rockefeller said he was “continuing to push hard” for his legislation to suspend the EPA regulations “so that Congress, not federal regulators, can set national energy policy.” The West Virginia Democrat also came out this summer against efforts to pass cap-and-trade legislation that would place mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

EPA already has promulgated climate rules for motor vehicles, the result of closed-door negotiations with the auto industry, environmentalists and California officials. Next up are rules due early next year dealing with coal-fired power plants. A number of other petitions from states and environmentalists are on EPA's doorstep that press for climate-focused limits on petroleum refiners and other major industrial sources.

State and industry-driven lawsuits are also in the works to block the EPA effort, starting with a challenge in a federal appeals court to the agency's underlying “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and are pollutants that endanger human health. That EPA finding triggered the requirements to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

On Thursday, White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner stopped short of pledging a veto of the Rockefeller bill and its House companion. But she insisted that the EPA would have running room thanks to the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling that affirmed the agency's authority to write the climate rules.

“We will continue to use all the tools available to us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” she told POLITICO. “The president believes in the science. He believes we have a Supreme Court decision and we will continue to move forward.”

Prospects of any bill stripping EPA of its authority are uncertain in the current political climate, but a GOP takeover of either chamber in 2011 makes the threat much more real.

Rockefeller's bill has seven Democratic cosponsors and a promise of floor time at some point this year from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) Coupled with Republican support, the Rockefeller bill has a slight chance of reaching 60 votes. The Senate voted last month 47-53 to reject Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) bid to reject the EPA's endangerment finding.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to allow a floor debate on legislation blocking the EPA rules. Even so, a House Appropriations subcommittee narrowly defeated an amendment on Thursday that would have stopped the EPA climate rules on stationary industrial sources for two years. Two Democrats joined five Republicans in the 7-7 vote that came during debate on the Interior and Environment fiscal 2011 spending bill.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40174.html#ixzz0uZ4AaWHc

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Denounce Pro-Corporate Bias

Source: Justice Watch

July 22, 2010

The Senate Judiciary Committee will voted 13-6 to advance the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday. Continuing one of the major themes from her confirmation hearing, many Democratic Senators used the vote as an opportunity to spotlight the undue influence that powerful corporate entities currently enjoy on the Supreme Court. AFJ applauds the Senators who used the hearing to highlight the pro-corporate bias of the current court, many examples of their statements are below. You can learn more about the Corporate Court and take action at www.thecorporatecourt.com.

Senator Franken offered this insight on the agenda of the conservative wing of the Court: “There is such a thing as judicial activism, there is such a thing as legislating from the bench and it is practiced repeatedly by the Roberts Court, and it has cut in only one direction—in favor of powerful corporate interests and against the rights of individual Americans.”

And, contesting to Justice Roberts' self-depiction as an uninterested umpire, Senator Whitehouse said, “precedents, whether of old or recent vintage, have been discarded at a startling rate. Statutes passed by Congress have been tossed aside with little hesitation, and constitutional questions of enormous import have been taken up hastily and needlessly…. There is an unmistakable pattern. For all the talk of umpires and balls and strikes at the Supreme Court, the strike zone for corporations gets better every day.

Senator Schumer, too, commented on this phenomenon: “The rightward shift of the Court under Chief Justice Roberts is palpable. In decision after decision, special interests are winning out over ordinary citizens.” Senator Cardin warned that “If you work for a living, if you are a woman, or if you are worried that corporations can buy a louder voice in an election than hardworking, everyday Americans, you need to keep an eye on the activism being practiced by this Supreme Court.”

Many Democratic Senators focused their questions for Kagan on a number of Roberts Court decisions that highlight the intense corporate bias of the current Court, including Citizens United v. FEC, Exxon v. Baker, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Rapanos v. United States, and Gross v. FBL Services.

Citizens United

Nearly all of the Democratic Senators on the Committee spoke out against the landmark Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to corporate spending in elections.

Senator Franken noted that a full that 80 percent of Americans disagreed with the decision. He also lambasted the Court for guaranteeing an outcome that favored corporations by changing the issue after the case had been tried, argued, and appealed, noting “if that isn't outcome-oriented, I don't know what is.”

Senator Whitehouse made a similar critique, noting that the Court had to engage in inappropriate fact-finding rather than limiting its consideration to the record before it in order to reach the decision it did in Citizens United.

Senator KAUFMAN warned of the “massive amounts of money” large corporations have at their disposal and the potential for corporations to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars if they decide it was in their interest to do so and completely overtake whatever individual expenditures we have in the country.”

Comparing the Citizens United decision to the right-wing, anti-regulation Lochner decision, Senator Schumer warned: “I am concerned that we'll soon find ourselves back in the Lochner era of activist judging….In allowing corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections, Citizens United showed just how much the current conservative bloc on the court, in its zeal to bend the Constitution to an ideology, has lost sight of the practical consequences of some of its decisions.”

Senator Franken predicted what some of those practical consequences might be, warning that corporations would not only spend huge sums of money on elections, but also “when we try to protect against oil drilling in deep water when we don't have safety precautions or Wall Street fraud. They're going to spend their money against the consumer and environmental laws that protect our families and our homes.”

Exxon v. Baker

With oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico while the confirmation hearing took place, many senators addressed the recent Supreme Court decision of Exxon v. Baker, which reduced the plaintiffs' original award by 90% and promulgated a new rule that punitive damages cannot exceed compensatory damages in maritime cases.

• Senator Feingold criticized the decision, stating: “It's not hard to read this decision, especially in light of what's happened in the Gulf, as the Supreme Court giving a free pass to reckless corporations, even when our health and environment are at stake. This is also one of many decisions over the last decade where the Court has bent over backwards to find a way to protect corporate interests.”

Senator Cardin too criticized the decision, noting that along with the Rapanos decision, it had the effect of weakening “environmental protections that were hard-fought in Congress.”

Senator KAUFMAN warned that the Court's decision to slice the plaintiffs' damages by two billion dollars could have the effect of lessening incentives for companies like Exxon or BP to take appropriate safety precautions to avoid potential spills.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

While Congress has rectified the injustice created by the Roberts' Court decision in Ledbetter by passing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, numerous senators expressed frustration over the decision and the Court's seeming inability to foresee the real-world consequences of the decision.

Senator Cardin railed that the Court used the case to articulate a new test that was “incredible to believe” and which made it “impossible” to discover pay discrimination and bring a timely claim.

Senator Whitehouse stated that “the Ledbetter case allowed an employer to get away with wage discrimination as long as it his it successfully from the employee.”

Rent-A-Center v. Jackson

Senators Whitehouse and Franken discussed the Rent-A-Center v. Jackson case, handed down the week before the Kagan hearing. The case involved a challenge to the enforceability of a mandatory arbitration agreement employees were required to sign as a condition of employment.

Senator Whitehouse criticized the Court's decision: “Only last week, the Rent-A-Center decision concluded that an employee who challenges as unconscionable an arbitration demand must have that challenge decided by the arbitrator.”

Senator Franken described the problematic nature of mandatory arbitration agreements: “These clauses basically say if we violate your fights, you can't take us to court. You have to take it to an arbitrator. But then the fine print essentially says an arbitrator that we pay who depends on us for work and who makes decisions in secret.” He reached back to criticize a related 2001 decision issued by the Rehnquist court, Circuit City Stores v. Adams, and criticized the Supreme Court for ignoring the legislative history, which indicated that Congress did not intend for employment contracts to be subject to mandatory arbitration clauses. He chastised the Court for its “strained reading of the law” in Circuit City Stores and urged Kagan to give more deference to “the reasons [Congress] passed a law in the first place.” Senator Franken continued his assault on the Court's favoritism of powerful corporate interests by criticizing the Roberts' Court recent Rent-A-Center v. Jackson case: “Rent-A-Center argued that only the arbitrator could decide whether the arbitration clause was unfair. Last week, the Roberts Court sided with Rent-A-Center. Talk about not getting your day in court. Now you can't get your day in court to get your day in court.”

Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.

Senator Cardin commented on the effect of the Leegin decision, which invalidated a rule against corporate price-fixing: “Are you a consumer? Do you buy products for you or your family? If so, the Supreme Court in Leegin – yet another 5-4 split – should be of concern to you too. Here, the Court ignored long-standing precedent to protect big business to perpetuate price-fixing. It was a ruling that put consumers at risk.”

Rapanos v. United States

Many senators expressed concern over the weakened environmental protections in effect after the Rapanos case, which restricted the federal government's jurisdiction over many of the nation's waterways under the Clean Water Act.

Senator Cardin criticized the case as a “step backwards” for the environment because of the reduced protection for wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

Senator Franken, too, expressed concern about the decision: “in Rapanos the Court struck down these regulations, because it said they were too broad, even though they had been in place for up to 30 years or actually necessary to protect America's water. And this water is what people drink, people catch fish in, and that our kids swim in. Thanks to this case and a similar case known as Swank, the Clean Water Act now it doesn't cover half of the nation's largest polluters.”

Gross v. FBL Financial Services

Many senators remarked on Gross v. FBL Services, which made it considerably more difficult for victims of age discrimination to prove their case by creating a new rule that in a mixed-motive age discrimination case, the plaintiff must prove that discrimination was the sole reason for the termination.

• Senator Whitehouse lamented that the case “made it harder for a victim of age discrimination to prove his or her case” and Senator Franken noted that the “the Roberts Court made it easier for corporations to fire older Americans and get away with it.”

Senator Schumer remarked on the practical difficulty this decision presented: “courts have recognized that only employers have access to the evidence of their own motivation.”

Senator Cardin echoed these concerns: “Now, how do I explain to a 50-some-year-old woman with a couple of children who is fired after 25 years in the workforce because the employer wants to hire someone half her age and pay 1/3 the salary, how is she getting a fair shake when the Supreme Court changes the test in order to avoid the current protections we thought we had in the law against age discrimination?”

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

The Federal Firearms Act

Posted: July 23rd, 2010 by Gadget42

from Original Intent

Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come?

One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We've never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist.

Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of “public policy”, with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to “flexible” interpretations by “cooperative” judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system.

The Federal Firearms Act (as amended)
(18 USC, Chapter 44) Try as you might to find the title, “Federal Firearms Act” associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there.

The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled “Commerce and Trade”. Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right – the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the “Commerce and Trade” title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of “Commerce and Trade”, there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.

Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252].

Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about.

There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

18 USC §10:
The term ”interstate commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ”foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country .

This is a pretty clear definition – and it will get clearer as this article proceeds!

Interestingly, “interstate commerce” and “foreign commerce” are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

18 USC §921(2)
The term ” interstate or foreign commerce ” includes commerce between  any  place in a State and any  place outside of that State , or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
[emphasis and underlining added]

You should recognize that as a  legal term , the phrase “ interstate or foreign commerce ” does  not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means  only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44?

The only distinction we find is in the use of the words “… any place in a State…”. Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense – or does it? Maybe we should ask what “ place within a State” might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let's explore!

Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled “Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction”. What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is “State jurisdiction” and there is “federal jurisdiction”, and the two are  not the same.

Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we'll get lost if we don't understand exactly what is being referred to in §7.

Section 7 defines the “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”. Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article:

18 USC §7(3):
Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or  any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction.  It must be remembered that such federal “places” exist  within the states of the Union .

One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over  all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings

Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let's go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a).

[ Editor's Note: We've removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader .]

18 USC §13(a):
Whoever within… any places … provided in section 7 of this title…not within the  jurisdiction of any State …is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted  within the jurisdiction of the State…in which such  place is situated …

Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the “ places ” that are referred to in the definition of “interstate or foreign commerce” at §921(2). The  places made mention of in §921(2) are the “ places…provided in section 7 of this title “, which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State!

Now let's do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let's add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of “interstate and foreign commerce” (at §921(2)). Our “clarified” version reads like this:

The term ”interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia.

Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn't it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses “States” is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, “interstate or foreign commerce” means commerce [solely]  within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my. Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean!

Are you getting the picture? Every “place” being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And  the “interstate and foreign commerce” being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such “places” . For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined “State” as “the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States”. In short, it's all territorial.

The definition of “interstate or foreign commerce”, at 921(2), is only a “red herring” placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons).  The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union .

Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of “interstate commerce” provided at §10? Two little words – “ any place ” – needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

If one reads the “Congressional Findings and Declarations” in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what?  The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime . The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the “exclusive legislative control” clause,  but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union .

Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its “intentions” or its “goals”, but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.

Laws No Longer Printed You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were “omitted” when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word “omit”; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster's II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, “Left out”. When a section or portion of a statute is “omitted” it is exactly as Webster has stated – it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect – it simply isn't printed in the United States Code any more!

[ Editor Note -  The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See "What is the United States Code" for more on the Statutes-at-Large. ]

So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of “presumption from possession”. While we've not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory “presumptions” tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of “interstate or foreign commerce”. Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney's Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that's a bit difficult when the law isn't printed in the Code any more!

The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, “receipt with knowledge…that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where  State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively.” You've got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you!

Summary Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they've never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of “public policy” law that will eventually take the industry's life, and with it the American Citizen's access to at least one form of arms.

Let's review what we've covered:

1. Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act.

2. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, “Commerce and Trade”.

3. In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18.

4. Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they're really up to.]

5. Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners!

6. The foundation of the federal government's authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.

7. Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia.

8. The definition of “interstate and foreign commerce” at §921(2) does not refer to the government's Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government's police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress.

9. The “declarations” or “findings” that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.

If you have found this item to be informative, please send this URL to a friend, associate, or family member. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

A mountain gets its green back

Nature center's new headquarters fulfills vision of restoring Superfund site.

Toxic waste dump receives new EPA order to clean up contaminated soil

EPA seeking approval to clean up property

AIG agrees to pay $725 million in class-action settlement

ReVolt: Is it Time to “Zinc” About a Different Kind of Battery?

CONTACT:

Latisha Petteway

petteway.latisha@epa.gov

202-564-3191

202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 28, 2010

EPA Publishes Latest Data on Industrial and Toxics Releases in the U.S.

Data on Toxics Release Inventory available the same month it is collected

WASHINGTON – As part of the Obama Administration's continuing commitment to open government, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the latest data on industrial releases and transfers of toxic chemicals in the United States between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2009. EPA is making the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data available within weeks of the reporting deadline through its Web site and in the popular tools, TRI Explorer and Envirofacts. The database contains environmental release and transfer data on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories reported to EPA by more than 21,000 industrial and other facilities.

“It is vital that every community has access to information that impacts their health and environment,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “The data we're releasing provides critical insights about pollution and polluters in the places where people live, work, play and learn. Making that knowledge available is the first step in empowering communities to protect the environment in their areas.”

The preliminary dataset allows communities to find out about releases and transfers of chemicals at the local level. Examples of industries that report to TRI include manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities among others. Facilities must report their data by July 1 st of each year.

The preliminary dataset includes more than 80 percent of the data expected to be reported for 2009. EPA will continue to process paper submissions, late submissions, and to resolve issues with the electronic submissions. The agency will update the dataset in August and again in September so citizens will have complete access to the information. EPA encourages the public to review and analyze the data while EPA conducts its own analysis, which will be published later this year.

More information on the data: http://www.epa.gov/tri

Basis for Taking Action: NONE!

The contaminants of concern identified by EPA are acidity and toxic metals, which include copper, cadmium, and zinc. All of these contaminants are present in the AMD discharges from the underground, side hill, and open pit mine workings at IMM, and the AMD discharges from area sources in the Slickrock Creek and Boulder Creek watersheds at IMM. The exceedances of water quality standards and the accumulation of toxic sediments downstream of IMM historically caused severe environmental impacts and posed a potential threat to human health.
The Sacramento River is a source of drinking water for the City of Redding. The Central Valley Project (CVP) facilities of northern California are important components of California’s water supply system. CVP operates under a complex operational plan to supply agricultural and drinking water, to produce power, and to address environmental concerns.
The fishery resources, other aquatic species, and the ecosystem of Keswick Reservoir and the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam are the primary natural resources at risk to uncontrolled IMM heavy metal discharges. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has listed the Upper Sacramento River as the most important salmon spawning ground in California. The Sacramento River downstream of Keswick Dam contains four races of anadromous Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Chinook salmon (fall-, late-fall-, spring-, and winter-run) migrate into, spawn, incubate, and rear in the reach of the river immediately downstream of Keswick Dam. Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon are listed as endangered by the NOAA Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) under the United States Endangered Species Act. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon are listed as threatened by NOAA Fisheries and CDFG. Fall-run and late-fall-run Chinook salmon are identified as species of concern by NOAA Fisheries. Central Valley distinct population segment steelhead trout and the southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon are listed as threatened by NOAA Fisheries.
RDD\081190031 (CAH4094.DOC) 12

IV. Remedial Actions: NONE!
Remedial Action Objectives Iron Mountain Mine Acid Mine Drainage Discharges
The remedial action objective identified for the interim remedial action selected in ROD4 for EPA’s IMM Superfund cleanup program is to eliminate the AMD discharges that are harmful
to public health and the environment. EPA did not designate remedy specific remedial action objectives in RODs 1-4, but did identify three primary cleanup goals:
�
Comply with water quality criteria established under the Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (standards are set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin [Basin Plan] and statewide plans). These standards were established to protect the valuable Sacramento fishery and aquatic ecosystems. The Basin Plan calls for a water quality standard of
5.6 parts per billion (ppb) dissolved copper as an instantaneous maximum exposure.
�
Reduce the mass discharge of toxic heavy metals through application of appropriate control technologies.
�
Minimize the need to rely on special releases of valuable water resources to dilute continuing
IMM contaminant discharges in order to assure attainment of protective water quality criteria.
EPA has concluded that a combination of source control, treatment, and water management components are needed to assure an effective, implementable, and cost-effective cleanup program for the IMM AMD discharges.

Community Involvement: NONE!

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, EPA set dissolved copper, zinc, and cadmium performance standards for the effluent that were intended to reflect proper operations of the High Density Sludge treatment plant. EPA recognized at that time that there were limited data and agreed to revisit the standard once operational experience was gained. As part of this five-year review, EPA has reviewed the treatment plant performance data for the High Density Sludge technology. EPA’s review of treatment plant performance data indicates that the Site Operator has properly operated the High Density Sludge treatment plant. However, the treatment plant effluent does not meet the technology-based maximum concentration limits, and the rolling 7-day and 30-day averages for dissolved zinc and the 30-day average for dissolved cadmium, even though the plant is properly operated. EPA has determined that it should formally revise the best-available-technology zinc and cadmium performance standards in the IMM SOW to more accurately reflect the amount of metals that can be removed by the High Density Sludge treatment technology. FRAUDS AND FAKERS AND LIARS

Water Quality at Sacramento River below Keswick Dam: ALWAYS BEEN CLEAN ENOUGH TO DRINK IF YOU DON'T OBJECT TO THE DISGUSTING THINGS THE FISH DO IN IT!

KATHLEEN SALYER, DO YOU READ THE SHIT YOU SIGN?

After the 1997 ROD was signed, the State’s Inland Surface Water Plan was vacated by the court and EPA promulgated the CTR standards to replace the standards in that plan. The CTR left site specific standards in place for the Sacramento River above Hamilton City, but promulgated new criteria for chronic exposures for this same reach of the Sacramento River. Because the IMM interim remedial action was not yet complete, Reclamation has continued to operate CVP facilities in accordance with the 1980 MOU, and was not required to control the discharges from CVP facilities to maintain compliance with the CTR water quality standards.

Recommendation: Determine the contents of the fluid in the chemical storage tanks across the road from the cementation plant and provide proper containment if required or properly dispose of the contents.

IMO Response: The tanks, equipment, and drums in this area are the property of Mr. T. W. Arman, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. IMO discussed the contents of the tanks with Mr. Arman. The tanks were stated to contain AMD, sodium silicate, and Mr. Arman’s Ag-Gel fertilizer product (Carver, 2008).
Status: EPA will contact Mr. Arman to request that Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. provide proper containment for the tanks or properly dispose of the contents. Three 6,500-gallon poly tanks are located adjacent to the east side of the metal shed that is across the road from the cementation plant. These tanks contained approximately 8,600 gallons of fluid during the April 3, 2008, inspection. An additional poly tank of similar volume is located within the metal shed, with equipment. Many 55-gallon plastic drums are stored on the north side of the metal shed, and most appeared to be empty during the April 3, 2008, site inspection. There is no secondary containment for any of the tanks or drums.

Issue: Treatment Plant Audit
The IMM Third Five-Year Review (EPA, 2003) identified the following issue:
CH2M Hill has been working with AIG Consultants, Inc. to investigate the reported water quality exceedances for dissolved copper and zinc from the treatment plant effluent. Our review indicates that the Site Operator is properly operating the treatment
plant, that the treatment plant effluent is meeting the discharge requirements for dissolved copper, and that further study is required to assess whether the performance
standard should be revised for dissolved zinc. Our review indicates that the analytical methodology being used by the Site Operator does not accurately measure the low dissolved copper concentrations in the treatment plant effluent. Our review also indicates that the methodology used by the Site Operator reports higher concentrations
of zinc than other more accurate methodologies, but the discharges may not be able to meet the standard set by EPA. The investigation found that the zinc anodes may have been contributing to the high zinc discharges. EPA will continue its investigation of the zinc discharges to determine an appropriate response to the reported zinc water quality effluent exceedances from the treatment plant. YOU ARE THE POLLUTERS!

Recommendations: Treatment Plant Audit
The IMM Third Five-Year Review (EPA, 2003) provided the following general recommendation in response to the issue presented above:
EPA should continue to investigate the reasons and resolve in the near-term for the reported water quality exceedances from the treatment plant. Any recommendations from the investigation should be implemented and follow-up to ensure that the water quality standards leaving the treatment plant are met. The Site Operator will be directed to revise the analytical methodology used to monitor plant performance, as currently recommended. EPA should provide the list of documents that need updating to AIG Consultants, Inc. and develop a time frame for the work to be completed. FAILURE!

Dissolved Zinc
Dissolved zinc concentrations exceeded BAT daily, 7-day average, and 30-day average limits for the majority of the days reported. The daily limit was exceeded on 1,477 days (97 percent of IMO data). The average of all concentrations equaled 61 g/L, with a minimum of 3.7 g/L and a maximum of 363 g/L. The maximum result of 363 g/L occurred on November 18, 2004 (see Table 5). Figure 16 shows the daily, Figure 17 shows the 7-day rolling average, and Figure 18 shows the 30-day rolling average of dissolved zinc concentrations for the performance period.
On all days, zinc concentrations exceeded BAT 7-day and 30-day average limits. Results in excess of BAT limits for dissolved zinc are not related to specific operational activities or meteorological conditions (i.e., high winds). FAILURE!

AT WHAT LOCATIONS IN CALIFORNIA HAVE ELEVATED LEVELS OF MERCURY BEEN FOUND IN FISH?
Methylmercury is found in most fish, but some fish and some locations have higher amounts than others. Methylmercury is one of the chemicals in fish that most often creates a health concern. Consumption advisories due to high levels of methylmercury in fish have been issued in about 40 states. In California, methylmercury advisories have been issued for San Francisco Bay and the Delta; Tomales Bay in Marin County; and at the following inland lakes: Lake Nacimiento in San Luis Obispo County; Lake Pillsbury and Clear Lake in Lake County; Lake Berryessa in Napa County; Guadalupe Reservoir and associated reservoirs in Santa Clara County; Lake Herman in Solano County; San Pablo Reservoir in Contra Costa County; Black Butte Reservoir in Glenn and Tehama Counties; Lake Natoma and the lower American River in Sacramento County; Trinity Lake in Trinity County; and certain lakes and river stretches in the Sierra Nevada foothills in Nevada, Placer, and Yuba counties. Other locations may be added in the future as more fish and additional water bodies are tested. YOU BITCHES CAN ROT IN HELL FOR IGNORING THIS WHILE TORMENTING TED ARMAN

11.0 Brick Flat Pit
The amount of filtrate has decreased significantly at Brick Flat Pit. Throughout 2005, IMO noted in the Monthly Progress Reports that minimal flow was occurring at Filtrate Monitoring Sump 8R and low to minimal flow was observed from the Brick Flat Pit Spillway System. Minimal filtrate flow rates have continued to occur. During the October 26, 2005, meeting with AIG, EPA, IMO, and CH2M HILL (CH2M HILL, 2005), two possible reasons for reduced filtrate flow were discussed: (1) the filtrate piping has malfunctioned, or (2) the amount of filtrate has decreased as a result of the thickness of the overlying sludge, and the water is exiting the pit through the unlined sidewalls of the pit. The Brick Flat Pit liner extends 10 feet from the bottom of the pit. The sludge is currently about 80-feet thick.
IMO has conducted monitoring, but has not identified seeps around Brick Flat Pit. IMO has performed phosfluorescent dye studies on the drainage system in an attempt to trace the pathway of seepage from Brick Flat Pit. The phosfluorescent dye was a dye that is typically used in sewer tracer studies. The dye has not been detected at potential exit points, including AMD collected from the Richmond Mine. The dye might be diluted to below detectable limits by other flows in the Richmond Mine or degraded during contact with low-pH waters. IMO has monitored the water level in the filtrate riser pipe, and no standing water has been detected. IMO has poured water into the filtrate riser pipes, and the water has been observed to flow over the weir, indicating that the filtrate pipelines are not broken. IMO thinks, but has not been able to verify, that drainage from Brick Flat Pit is entering stopes of the Richmond Mine, through the highly fractured north slope of Brick Flat Pit (Carver, 2008).
Brick Flat Pit is considered a dry landfill (EPA, 2000). The location of Brick Flat Pit was determined to be an effective sludge disposal location because drainage, if not captured, would reenter the ore body and be captured by the AMD treatment system (EPA, 1986), or would be discharged to the Slickrock Creek drainage, which is currently captured for treatment by SCRR.
Section 6.4 (Landfill Management Report and Plan) of the SOW (EPA, 2000) requires that “by November 30 of each year, the Site Operator shall provide to the Oversight Agency, for Oversight Agency review and approval, the Landfill Management Report and Plan”. As described in the SOW, The Landfill Management Report and Plan is an annual report that enables the Oversight Agency to effectively evaluate whether the Brick Flat Pit landfill was properly managed, consistent with the concept design for a dry landfill, over the preceding twelve (12)-month period, and that the landfill will be properly managed as a dry landfill over the upcoming twelve (12)-month period. The Operations and Maintenance Submittal Register of the IMO February 200 Monthly Progress Report (Table 10 of IMO, 2008g) indicates that the most recent Landfill Management Report and Plan was submitted in January 2004 (IMO, 2004).

11.1 Recommendations
IMO should submit an annual Landfill Management Report and Plan that addresses the requirements in the SOW (EPA, 2000).
Reasons for the reduced filtrate at Brick Flat Pit should continue to be evaluated. During the April 25, 2008, meeting, CH2M HILL and IMO discussed that other types of dye, such as lithium or a radioactive tracer, be considered for additional studies.
Groundwater elevation data collected at Brick Flat Pit are included in the road operator monthly data sheets in the IMO Monthly Progress Reports and are reviewed by IMO staff. CH2M HILL recommends that IMO also include Brick Flat Pit groundwater elevation data in the Microsoft Access database for potential future use in evaluation of filtrate pathways.

CONTACT:

Cathy Milbourn (News Media Only)

Milbourn.cathy@epa.gov

202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 29, 2010

EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and threatens human health and the environment.

The petitions to reconsider EPA's Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA finds no evidence to support these claims. In contrast, EPA's review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger.

“The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”

The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.

Claim : Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia 's Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.

Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

Claim : Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.

Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson's decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

Claim : Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information.

Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.

Claim : Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.

Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA's Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in volume one of the response to petition documents, on EPA's website.

Climate change is already happening, and human activity is a contributor. The global warming trend over the past 100 years is confirmed by three separate records of surface temperature, all of which are confirmed by satellite data. Beyond this, evidence of climate change is seen in melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, and changing ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

“America's Climate Choices,” a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the most recent assessment of the full body of scientific literature on climate change, along with the recently released “State of the Climate” report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both fully support the conclusion that climate change is real and poses significant risk to human and natural systems. The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA's conclusion.

Information on EPA's findings and the petitions: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

More information on climate change: http://epa.gov/climatechange

Review America 's Climate Choices report: http://americasclimatechoices.org/

Review State of the Climate report:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

Review information on Indicators of Climate Change: http://epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html

TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS GENERALLY

Sec. 255. Approval of title prior to Federal land purchases;
payment of title expenses; application to Tennessee Valley
Authority; Federal jurisdiction over acquisitions

STATUTE:

Unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the
sufficiency of the title to land for the purpose for which the
property is being acquired by the United States, public money may
not be expended for the purchase of the land or any interest
therein.
The Attorney General may delegate his responsibility under this
section to other departments and agencies, subject to his general
supervision and in accordance with regulations promulgated by him.
Any Federal department or agency which has been delegated the
responsibility to approve land titles under this section may
request the Attorney General to render his opinion as to the
validity of the title to any real property or interest therein, or
may request the advice or assistance of the Attorney General in
connection with determinations as to the sufficiency of titles.
Except where otherwise authorized by law or provided by contract,
the expenses of procuring certificates of titles or other evidences
of title as the Attorney General may require may be paid out of the
appropriations for the acquisition of land or out of the
appropriations made for the contingencies of the acquiring
department or agency.
The foregoing provisions of this section shall not be construed
to affect in any manner any existing provisions of law which are
applicable to the acquisition of lands or interests in land by the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obtaining of
exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests
therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall
not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any
department or independent establishment or agency of the Government
may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable,
accept or secure from the State in which any lands or interests
therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control are
situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or
partial, not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests
as he may deem desirable and indicate acceptance of such
jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of
such acceptance with the Governor of such State or in such other
manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such
lands are situated. Unless and until the United States has
accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as
aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such
jurisdiction has been accepted.


Source: US HOUSE REP (1/2001)

The Oversight Agency will secure permission for the Site Operator to enter and perform Work at the property owned by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., T.W. Arman, the United States, or the State (if any), including the facilities, plant and equipment located thereon (and necessary to carry out the actions of the SOW and Consent Decree) for the sole purpose of permitting the Site Operator to carry out the Work under the SOW and Consent Decree. JOINT AND SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS

Public Health Goal
A revised PHG of 300 g/L was developed for copper in drinking water, based on a review of the scientific literature since the original PHG, in 1997 (OEHHA, 2008). Copper is an essential nutrient in humans, and has not been shown to be carcinogenic in animals or humans. However, young children, and infants in particular, appear to be especially susceptible to the effects of excess copper.
The revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater.

ENSLAVERS EJECTMENT; NONUPLED DAMAGES

P.S. DEMAND FOR SECURITY AND COLLATERAL

When Scientists Sin

Fraud, deception and lies in research reveal how science is (mostly) self-correcting

From the July 2010 Scientific American Magazine | By Michael Shermer

In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.... After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”

Unfortunately, says Feynman's Caltech colleague David Goodstein in his new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science (Princeton University Press, 2010), some scientists do try to fool their colleagues, and believing that everyone is conventionally honest may make a person more likely to be duped by deliberate fraud. Nature may be subtle, but she does not intentionally lie. People do. Why some scientists lie is what Goodstein wants to understand. He begins by debunking myths about science such as: “A scientist should never be motivated to do science for personal gain, advancement or other rewards.” “Scientists should always be objective and impartial when gathering data.” “Scientists must never believe dogmatically in an idea or use rhetorical exaggeration in promoting it.” “Scientists should never permit their judgments to be affected by authority.” These and many other maxims just do not reflect how science works in practice.

Knowing that scientists are highly motivated by status and rewards, that they are no more objective than professionals in other fields, that they can dogmatically defend an idea no less vehemently than ideologues and that they can fall sway to the pull of authority allows us to understand that, in Goodstein's assessment, “injecting falsehoods into the body of science is rarely, if ever, the purpose of those who perpetrate fraud. They almost always believe that they are injecting a truth into the scientific record.” Goodstein should know because his job as the vice provost of Caltech was to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct. From his investigations Goodstein found three risk factors present in nearly all cases of scientific fraud. The perpetrators, he writes, “1. Were under career pressure; 2. Knew, or thought they knew, what the answer to the problem they were considering would turn out to be if they went to all the trouble of doing the work properly; and 3. Were working in a field where individual experiments are not expected to be precisely reproducible.”

To detect fraud, we must first define it, and Goodstein does: “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” Next there must “be significant departure from accepted practices of the scientific community.” Then, the misconduct must be “committed intentionally, or knowingly, or in reckless disregard of accepted practices,” and finally, as in any court of law, the fraud charge must be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

Clear-cut cases of fraud include the twin studies of British psychologist Cyril L. Burt (who faked so many twins that he had to fabricate additional twin researchers), the Sloan-Kettering Institute cancer researcher William Summerlin's experiments on inducing healthy black skin grafts on white mice (which he was caught enhancing with a black felt-tipped pen), physicist Victor Ninov's alleged discovery of element 118 (predicted by others so he faked data for its existence), and of course the famous Piltdown Man hoax (which turned out to be the jaw of an orangutan dyed to look old). Other cases are not so clear. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons's “discovery” of cold fusion, Goodstein concludes, was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.” This self-deception is distinctly different from deliberate deception.

So some scientists sin, it's true. Given the fiercely competitive nature of research funding and the hardscrabble intensity of scientific status seeking, it is surprising that fraud isn't more rampant. The reason that it is so rare (compared with, say, corruption in politics) is that science is designed to detect deception (of one's self and others) through colleague collaboration, graduate student mentoring, peer review, experimental corroboration and results replication. The general environment of openness and honesty, though mythic in its idealized form, nonetheless exists and in the long run weeds out the cheats and exposes frauds and hoaxes, as history has demonstrated.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Judgments on Honorius

Honorius on the consular diptych of Anicius Petronius Probus (406)

In his History of the Wars , Procopius mentions a story (which Gibbon disbelieved) where, on hearing the news that Rome had "perished", Honorius was initially shocked; thinking the news was in reference to a favorite chicken he had named "Roma".

"At that time they say that the Emperor Honorius in Ravenna received the message from one of the eunuchs, evidently a keeper of the poultry, that Rome had perished. And he cried out and said, 'And yet it has just eaten from my hands!' For he had a very large cock, Rome by name; and the eunuch comprehending his words said that it was the city of Rome which had perished at the hands of Alaric, and the emperor with a sigh of relief answered quickly: 'But I thought that my fowl Rome had perished.' So great, they say, was the folly with which this emperor was possessed." Procopius, The Vandalic War (III.2.25-26)

Summarizing his account of Honorius' reign, the historian J.B. Bury wrote, "His name would be forgotten among the obscurest occupants of the Imperial throne were it not that his reign coincided with the fatal period in which it was decided that western Europe was to pass from the Roman to the Teuton." After listing the disasters of those 28 years, Bury concludes that Honorius "himself did nothing of note against the enemies who infested his realm, but personally he was extraordinarily fortunate in occupying the throne till he died a natural death and witnessing the destruction of the multitude of tyrants who rose up against him." [ 9 ]

Honorius issued a decree during his reign, prohibiting men from wearing trousers in Rome [Codex Theodosianus 14.10.2-3, tr. C. Pharr, "The Theodosian Code," p. 415]. The last known gladiatorial fight took place du