On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eLibrary - All Crimes and More Recorded!
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!
Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Friday, September 30, 2011

Rony Joel Lawsuit – Important Evidence

Watch this short video from a city council meeting and listen carefully:


What is stated in the video: the City of Marco Island WAS CRUSHING ASBESTOS PIPE and that it was being taken to a landfill – (the empty lot that what was to become Veterans Park).

The EPA found that

  • Asbestos was being crushed,
  • Asbestos was being buried and hauled improperly
  • Asbestos IS FRIABLE - meaning it can and does go airborne (that is why it's so lethal and there has been decades of legal claims).

1 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Rony Joel Lawsuit – the Answer

The former Public Utilities Director for the City of Marco Island has sued this paper/author.

CLICK HERE for the abridged answer.

Memorandum of law to follow …

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Rony Joel Sues this Paper’s Writer/Author

The only fourth branch of government found on Marco Island, this newspaper, is back being active!

Arnon Rony Joel, former Public Utilities Director for the City of Marco Island sues. CLICK HERE FOR JOELs SUIT.

Here are a couple of court decisions for those wanting to be informed on the nature of the 1st Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court Case:
The New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d. 686 (1964)
To protect "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues, the Supreme Court held that no public official may recover "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." The Court stated that the First and Fourteenth Amendments require that critics of official conduct have the "fair equivalent" to the immunity protection given to a public official when he is sued for defamatory speech uttered in the course of his duties.

U.S. Supreme Court Case:
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d. 789 (1974)
The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel.

More to come.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home