Update on EPA Lawsuit
Clearly, this action precipitated the relatively recent "enforcement." The meeting between the City and the EPA is pending.
But now into the 8th month of this odyssey, and TWO YEARS SINCE DOCUMENTS WERE REQUESTED, the lawsuit against the EPA continues as it seeks under the Freedom of Information Act all documents from the EPA that are in any way related to Marco Island.
The U.S. Attorney – the lawyer(s) that defends the EPA – has recently sought to change the means by which this case is to be tried. They have asked the federal court to change the case so that it is adjudicated based on what is tantamount to an inventory list of the documents – not the documents themselves. The court reviews the inventory list which is compiled based on what the EPA/US Attorney decides what documents to note on that list and how these documents are described.
If this request is granted, the Plaintiff, i.e., We the People, cannot challenge what is on the list or how the documents are categorized. If this motion prevails, there is no discovery, no right to ask questions via interrogatories or request for admissions, and no right for the documents themselves to be inspected.
Naturally this maneuver is being opposed by a legal brief that will be submitted this Friday May 7, 2010.
Chances are still exceedingly remote that We the People will prevail in obtaining the release of all of the documents since there are no lawyers and no experience in constitutional law on our side – while the EPA has the entirety of the U.S. Department of Justice and their own well-trained lawyers.
At this point we can only speculate as to what is being withheld by the EPA. While we have no interest in who inside the EPA did what, we find that all else is relevant to the citizenry.
We can only hope that the documents reveal if, when and how the asbestos was removed from the island; if, when and how the toxic effluent that was dumped into the Gulf of Mexico was remediated; if the myriad toxic clouds of harmful gas was tested as to the health of the people in the gassed areas.
Secondary is the information as to which individuals were responsible, and why to date there has been no prosecution.
You would think that the Environmental "Protection" Agency would have a legal and moral obligation to inform the citizenry of the health risks if any, as to how their environment has been cleaned up, or not, and why there have been no individuals prosecuted.
You would think so since presumably the EPA works for We the People.
Keep your fingers crossed.