Marco Island Dewatering - AGAIN!

As witnessed on October 28, 2011 on the corner of Yellowbird and Collier.



Yes, October 2011!

So, where is the permit?

Anyone cares?

EPA Creates Info Just for Marco Island

Since the "Environmental Specialist" for Marco Island didn't care and clearly did not object to the city's violation of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and the release of toxic fumes into neighborhoods, the EPA has just released this information. Perhaps the "Environmental Specialist" can now understand her role – if not her moral obligation.

EPA lanza herramienta cibernética en español para conocer sustancias químicas en su comunidad

 
 

WASHINGTON - La Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos (U.S. EPA) está haciendo más fácil encontrar información sobre emisiones de sustancias químicas tóxicas en comunidades, lanzando una versión en español del sitio web "myRTK" (My Right-to-Know).   Para cualquier ubicación geográfica, myRTK traza en un mapa los establecimientos que informan al Programa para el Compendio de Descargas Toxicas (Toxics Release Inventory – TRI) y muestran qué sustancias químicas toxicas son emitidas al aire, al agua y al suelo. Los usuarios pueden enterarse de los efectos potenciales de la salud asociados con estas sustancias químicas tóxicas y aprender si un establecimiento en particular está cumpliendo con las leyes ambientales federales. La versión en inglés y en español de myRTK es accesible en computadoras y aparatos móviles.

 
 

TRI fue establecido en 1986 por la ley la Planeación de Emergencias y el Derecho de Comunidades de Saber (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) y luego fue expandida por la Ley de Prevención de la Contaminación (Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)) en 1990. Juntos, estas leyes requieren que establecimientos en ciertos sectores industriales presenten informes anualmente sobre emisiones, descargas, y el manejo de más de 650 sustancias químicas tóxicas reguladas por el TRI. Estos datos están disponibles por medio de myRTK y mediante otras herramientas.

 
 

Para más información sobre las versiones en inglés o en español: http://myrtk.epa.gov/info/ o http://www.epa.gov/tri/myrtk

 
 

Para más información sobre los datos del TRI: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata

Amateur Boxing on Marco Joins Amateur Everything Else

Amateur Boxing is now on Marco Island … joining the following list of amateur events:

• Amateur City Governance (a la Tucker, Walduck, Minozzi, Trotter, Gibon, Kiester, Etc...)
  
• Amateur City Management (plethora of city managers a la Moss, et. al.)
  
• Amateur Project Supervision:
  
  • STRP: Septic Tank Replacement Programs (Screw The Resident Public)
    
  • South Collier Blvd
    
  • Storm Water Runoff (who knew it rains in South Florida!)
    
  • Etc…
    
• Amateur Environmental Stewardship:
  
  • Asbestos dumping, crushing, pulverizing, burying, remediation
    
  • Millions of gallons of noxious effluent pumped into Gulf of Mexico and waterways
    
  • Releasing lethal-levels of toxic gas upon entire neighborhoods
    
  • Dead marsh on San Marco Rd.
    
  • No cisterns (except 2)
    
  • No reuse water
    
  • Etc…
    
• Amateur Financial Management:
  
  • $400,000,000 in debt and counting
    
  • Only means by which to raise revenue? Tax empty lots and raise water rates
    
  • Serial tax increases
    
• Amateur Arts:
  
  • "Blue Man" – the $10,000 statute
    
  • Art League ??
    
• Amateur Adherence to Federal Laws:
  
  • Violate Clean Air Act
    
  • Violate Clean Water Act
    
• Amateur Constitutional Awareness:
  
  • Violate First Amendment of U.S. Constitution
    
    • "Chief" removes speaker from podium for disagreeing with the sleazy, behind-the-scenes manner by which the syndicate named city hall
      
    • Defamation Lawsuit
      
  • Violate Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution
    
    • Crush septic tanks without compensation
      
• Amateur Restaurants (except Dunkin Donuts & Subways)
  
• Amateur Code Enforcement Board (obvious)
  

Inarguably, the Amateur Boxing will be infinitely better.

Occupy Wall Street: Same as Occupy Marco Island City Hall

Of the many aspects of the world-wide Occupy Wall Street rebellion is its inability to define exactly what it is that they are occupying for. To claim that the civil disobedience is "happening" in order to protest "corporate greed" or "big banks" or "wall street" or of course the mandatory scapegoats – the Jews – does not define much of anything.

So perhaps with an undefined vision or strategy, these mobs are garnering much attention so as to solicit or otherwise extort their pet projects for nothing – such as free student loans (or eliminate their defaulted student loans), eliminate their credit card debts, free medical care and other benefits derived by taxing (read: stealing) from those that actually work for a living.

Kind of like the crew that we have manipulating (as opposed to governing) Marco Island.

Ask yourself this question: when was the last time any Marco Island city councilor (governing) or anyone in the local syndicate (manipulating) came up with a vision for the island? A grand strategy? An all-encompassing macro plan for revitalization?

Never – just like the Occupy Wall Street mobs.

And like the Occupy Wall Street mob, the Occupy Marco Island City Hall kakistocracy wants their pet projects for nothing – such as the STRP, South Collier, the "arts", tennis courts, more this and more that – all by taxing (read: stealing) from those that actually work for a living. The Occupy Wall Street rabble hate the rich (people that work for a living), the Occupy Marco Island City Hall hate those that disagree with them, most notably those that exposed their shenanigans (asbestos crushing/dumping, violating the Clean Water Act by pumping toxic effluent into the waterways, releasing toxic gas, $400 million in debt for a project to benefit the hotels/restaurants/businesses, etc…)

Are these two Occupy Whatever factions identical or what?

Ask the Occupy Wall Street folks how we are to regain economic prominence so that we can have full employment and relieve much of the suffering many endure, and they will tell you that socialism is the answer (just like in Cuba, Venezuela, the USSR, North Korea, and the Eastern Bloc – now most of Europe.) Ask the Occupy Marco Island City Hall gang how we are to regain economic prominence so that we can have healthy real estate and tourism, and they will tell you that raising the millage rate is the answer (just like in Cuba, Venezuela, the USSR, North Korea, and the Eastern Bloc – now most of Europe.)

Ask the Occupy Wall Street mob how to pay for things, and their answer is to tax the rich (whoever they are.) Ask the Occupy Marco Island City Hall syndicate how to pay for things, and their answer is to tax everyone (as in anyone that flushes, or the other genius idea to tax those that own empty lots.) At least the former is not going after everyone for their idiotic ideas and have attractive regalia – unlike the latter that are targeting everyone and their regalia defame the decent man (recall how city hall was named.)

However, the regalia of the Occupy Wall Street crowds are notable. One particular favorite is how the iconic Ernesto "Che" Guevara appears on T-Shirts, books, flyers, flags and banners. Despite the fact that El Che loathed (capitalism, which he equated with imperialism) and hence would have killed (literally) for his image to not be commercialized, the protesters (or partiers) ignore facts and move as mobs do – with a vague definition of who they hate but without the fact-based reason why they hate.

Not too different how facts are ignored here and how our island partiers ignore facts ("there be fecal in them there canals!")

One day the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators will go away, succumbing to the forces of nature (four months of arctic cold) and the rule of law (prison.)

We can only be so lucky that the Occupy Marco Island City Hall governors and manipulators will succumb to the same fate (though it never gets so cold here.)

1st (Authentic) Restaurant to Open on Marco Island!

Enjoy.

And we hope that it is using filtered water ...

Status: Joel “Lawsuit”

The attorney for Joel files a motion for default – meaning that we have not answered. He does this AFTER receiving the answer from our attorney and communicating with our attorney.

And better yet – he doesn't send the motion to our attorney – but sends the motion for default directly to us – which is inappropriate to say the least (more likely intimidation – as if we are going to be intimidated by one of these types.)

Here is the status. Notice the motion filed, then the Court correctly does not enter the motion …

(click to enlarge)

More shenanigans by this crew assuredly to come. Stay tuned!

Defamation, Slander, Libel: A Primer

As we await the minutest details being made public as to the affairs of the City of Marco Island, its current and former employees, current and former city councilors, and power brokers … due to the lawsuit filed by the former public works director, we thought it best to provide one didactic posting on defamation.

And how better to do it than to quote legal scholars and the state and federal cases they base their teachings on. Enjoy:

• In Florida, a statement amounts to defamation per se if it accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime or imputes to the plaintiff conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his or her lawful business, trade, profession, or office.
  
• Florida has a broad conception of public officials, a category of government actors who must prove actual malice in order to prevail on a defamation claim.
  
• Florida courts recognize a number of privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including substantial truth, the opinion and fair comment privileges, the fair report privilege.
  
• The fair report privilege may protects from liability – even publishing something that is defamatory – if relying upon an official public document or statement by a public official for the false information, made clear that the document or statement was the source, and fairly and accurately used the source. This privilege enables one to freely report, for example, about what people say during a council meeting or from the witness stand during a trial or to quote from public records. This defense allows one to report on government activity without bearing the overwhelming burden of first proving the truth of everything said in government documents and proceedings.
  
• Whether the statement is true or not does not matter for purposes of the fair report privilege. The purpose of the privilege is to protect statements or facts from public sources that are newsworthy in and of themselves, regardless of their veracity.
  
• The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys. Accordingly, one can safely state opinions that others are inept, stupid, jerks, failures, etc. even though these statements might hurt the subject's feelings or diminish their reputations. Such terms represent what is called "pure opinions" because they can't be proven true or false. As a result, they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim.
  
• Stating the truth is never defamation, even if remotely possibly true.
  
• If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out to be incorrect.
  
• One may call someone a liar if it's true and even if it isn't, it's not libel unless one knows it's provably false when they say it.
  

Sources:
Harvard Law School
Citizen Media Law Project

How Limited Government Lost Its Limits

This nation was founded predominantly on a premise of limited government. But how it has become a leviathan of seemingly limitless power and without bounds is argued daily.

First of all, today's debates often confuse limited government with small government. These are two different premises given that limited government was sought after by the framers of the constitution while the latter was never mentioned.

Small government could not have been mentioned because the framers knew that they could not envision the size of the country nor the complexities that would arise in the future. Just consider the geographic dimensions of the new nation and the agrarian economy when it was formed. As the country grew, the legally mandated demands of the federal government (e.g., defense, tariffs) had to grow. Similarly, as the complexities of trade evolved as the economy moved from agrarian to industrial, (then eventually into the information and service age), so did the need for a bigger government.

No one can argue with the need today for a much greater and complex military as compared to 250 years ago. Ergo, where specifically called for in the constitution, the federal government is right to grow.

So while conservative pundits repeat the mantra of a "smaller government" one hopes that what they are really saying is that they want a more "limited" government, or a more efficient government.

But what was meant by the founders as to "limited government"? They simply wanted the government to have limits, constraints if you will, on how it could impinge on the rights of the individual. For after all, the whole idea of this nation is predicated on the consent of the governed.

And unlimited government, or an unrestrained government, was the founders biggest fears because such a government would easily trample and eventually obliterate the rights of the individual – those of whose consent was need, ipso facto then a government that evolved into one that need not have the consent of those governed. Just like the monarchy the founders were fighting to get away from, like the so many other despotic and statist governments that enslave their citizens.

So in today's America, how is it that the government is not as limited as it once was? Or more importantly, how is it that it is nowhere near being the government it was supposed to be? Because after all, the nation was founded primarily on the belief that some rights had to be given up – but not many.

Did the government uncheck its limits by force? Yes, but who elected the people that created the rule by force? Well, we did – but we have known this for quite some time.

The more inescapable reason is that we did it to each other, and that we did it to ourselves.

Just consider the microcosm of the greater nation right here on Marco Island.

Start with the now-exceeding $400 million sewer project. A program that has indebted the island for a long time to come, there is no means to pay for it despite the puerile raise-the-rates one-dimensional musings of the city council, and a massive ordeal that was never put to a vote.

Did anyone fight against it – other than a handful of patriots? No.

Then as the asbestos was flying and the toxic gas plumes were engulfing neighborhoods and poisonous effluent was flowing into the waterways sans the required EPA NPDES permit (a permit to discharge effluent), did anyone fight against these health and environmental abuses – other than a handful of the same patriots? No.

Then as one person financed the recall of the city councilors that gladly and willingly polluted the island, did anyone fight against the special good 'ol boy judge that was called back from retirement and sat on the decision long enough to render the recall worthless – other than a handful of the same patriots? No.

Then as the septic tanks were being crushed – paid for by their very owners of course – did anyone object to the fact that when the government orders the destruction of private property without compensation it violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the eminent domain clause) – other than two of the same patriots? No.

So here we go again. Now a lawsuit has been filed against one of those very same patriots for speaking out, for documenting what has happened. If the lawsuit is successful it will do nothing more than to carve away a right to expose government actions and thereby taking away yet another restraint as a government of limits.

These are the means, the ways, by the "consented to be governed" have willingly and knowingly given up their rights. It wasn't through an Obama-styled socialist takeover of some particular aspect of the economy, or through draconian and arguably illegal overreach by the EPA to control the very air we breathe (except the toxic plumes we all breathed on Marco Island – that was OK because God-forbid they embarrassed the complicit Florida Department of Environmental Protection), or by the 30,000 plus pages of the tax code, or by the myriad other restraints imposed on us.

The majority, as they complain that government has become too big – they mean it has become too limitless – readily give away their rights thereby fueling the engulfing flames of a government that has been allowed to lose its limits.

Any Attack on Free Speech Leads to …

This is what happens free speech is maligned, intimidated, censored, threatened, punished … soon enough, before you know it, this happens:

This video was smuggled out of Cuba just this week. The scene is the capital building in Havana.

Play the video and wait or fast forward to approximately 6 minutes – near the end. You will see as the women that said nothing more than "live democracy" and "free Cuba" are carted off - never to be seen again as of this date.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (re. Nazi actions)

Attempting to Silence Freedom of Speech

As the public is now aware, a one Rony Joel, former Public Utilities director for the City of Marco Island, sued this paper/author for defamation via slander and libel.

We seek to prepare the community for what is ahead.

Sometime later, we will expose via discovery every communication of every sort made by every current and former city councilor and public employee of the City since the South Collier construction project (the project where asbestos-laden pipe was crushed and therefore made airborne and handled improperly as evidenced by the EPA) until the present. Rest assured that even the emails and text messages sent to and from home computer/devices by anyone associated with the City will be subpoenaed. And naturally, as this information becomes a matter of public record it will be posted in this paper.

Until that time, and until other public records become available, we will present some salient judicial insight into how the courts have ruled regarding defamation.

The seminal case on defamation was the U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. All state and federal libel cases base their rulings on this case. A subsequent U.S. Supreme Court case summarized that determining case thus:

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Court "[determined] for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct." The State's trial court in that case believed the statements tended to injure the plaintiff's reputation or bring him into public contempt and were therefore libelous per se. The trial court therefore instructed the jury that it could presume falsity, malice, and some damage to reputation as long as it found that the defendant had published the statements and that the statements concerned the plaintiff. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

But then the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, and …

reversed, holding that against the "background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks," the Court noted that "interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth--whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials--and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker." Freedoms of expression require "breathing space," A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions--and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount--leads to . . . 'self-censorship.' . . . Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so.

Hence, the U.S. Supreme Court found …

that the Constitution "prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." That knowing must be made with "convincing clarity," or, in a later formulation, by "clear and convincing proof". The standards of New York Times apply not only when a public official sues a newspaper, but also when a "public figure" sues a magazine or news service.

In summary, for a public figure to prove defamation he/she/it must have clear and convincing proof that the statements were false AND were made with actual malice by proving that the statements were made with a reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. On the flip side, the person making the statements about the public figure need not fear being absolutely or even approximately correct.

Perhaps one might first ask before suing: who actually made the alleged defamatory statements, and then ask if the person that made them "believed [them] to be true" and did so with a "reckless disregard in they were false or not."