Marco Island BLOG

Liar Sues Victim

2012-01-27T09:09:00.002-05:00

A liar is outed on the internet by a whistle-blower and victim.

What does the liar do? Sues the person that exposes the lies.

It doesn't matter that there is evidence collaborating the lies. Sue them to shut them up.

That is the case from New York where a woman exposes her ex boyfriend for what he is. The ex boyfriend - having the syndicate and the power of the courts behind him - sues the ex girlfriend for the usual nonsense: defamation, libel, slander and of course torturous interference.

The now twice victim - the woman who exposes the liar - has obtained a lawyer. The lawyer stated that there are dire predictions for freedom if the plaintiff (the liar) is successful in silencing the truth. The lawyer also said:

It seems ironic that men can lie and cheat and then look to the courts for legal protection.

I think the minimum the women should be allowed to do is to speak out and speak the truth about the men who they have had relationships [with] and about the men who have hurt them.

We believe lawsuits like this should not be allowed. This is free speech. Women must have a voice and be able to speak to each other on matters of common interest without fear of being dragged into court.

As now American is officially socialist, it is well on its way on losing its freedom of speech.

Congratulations for also allowing your rights to free speech to evaporate.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/26/taking-liberties-lawsuit-worthy-google-search/#ixzz1kfS96SCs

Evidence: Rony Joel Lawsuit

2012-01-21T09:46:00.002-05:00

Marco Island Murderers' Row of Pols - Beginning of the End of Paradise!

As we gather our evidence to expose the frivolous and malicious prosecution, we put forth this oldie (2005) but goodie.

Listen to how there is no problem with any of the waterways and that there is nothing wrong with the septic tanks - but a sewer system is needed anyway ... because the then City Manager claims that the state is concerned.

(By the way, there never was a state concern, and when we called their bluff years later, they pointed to a "study" done in the Florida Keys much later. The problem for them was that the "study" turned out to be a hoax.)

But the best part is at the end - a citizen decries how the council is for special interests (in his stuttering we hear for the first time the use of the term SYNDICATE to describe the Marco Island Mafia) and how the compromised council and city employees ignore the regular non-special interest citizens.

Council's response? They laugh.

Ps. Before any more of you syndicate operatives claim yet another slander on the use of Murders' Row ... look it up on this new thing called the Internet - it has nothing to do with you people being murderers.

Water – More for Sale

2012-01-18T11:29:00.001-05:00

Former Governor Graham caution Florida lawmakers yesterday that pending legislative action "would cause considerable damage to the Everglades and cause Floridians to lose control of thousands of acres of wetlands."

From the Palm Beach Post: "Speaking to the Florida Legislative Everglades Caucus, Graham called on them to reject two water measures he called 'not just the camel's nose but the camel's neck and shoulders under the tent of privatization of water.' HB 639 would allow utilities to have permanent ownership of water they have used and treated."

This bill if enacted would change the current law that clearly defines water as belonging to the people – not to the municipality as the City of Marco Island incorrectly believes. Hence, rogue and privately controlled municipalities like the City of Marco Island (read: STRP, the syndicate, compliant judges, etc…) would be allowed to use water as another commodity by which to tax at politically advantageous (condominium) or disadvantageous (home owners) rates.

Namely, from the water belonging to the people (now treated water being injected into the aquifer for the most part), to being sold back to the people – wait! Isn't that what they syndicate promised with the STRP – non-potable treated water being sent back to the houses for irrigation? How did that work out for those STRP supporters?

Here on Marco Island, except for a handful of ignored former residents, no one actually cares about water, water conservation or water quality – unless it impacts them financially when paying their monthly water bill.

And that water bill will go up if the above noted House Bill becomes law since it would allow the City of Marco Island to further commoditize water.

Joel Suit - Biased Hayes Ruling Appealed

2012-01-15T14:05:00.003-05:00

The ruling by Hayes (where he asked no questions and to those in the gallery ignored the entire hearing) denying our motion on venue - per Florida Statutes - is being appealed.

CLICK HERE

Response to Biased Ruling - Joel Lawsuit

2012-01-05T21:06:00.001-05:00

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL ACTION

ARNON RONY JOEL,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11-2840-CA

MARIO SÁNCHEZ

Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S VERIFIED MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW Defendant, MARIO SÁNCHEZ and moves, by and through his undersigned attorney, for reconsideration of the Court's Order executed on December 20, 2011, which found in pertinent part that "venue is proper in Collier County, Florida." In support of his motion, Defendant states as follows:

Background

Dr. Mario Sánchez is a journalist, publishing his editorial and investigative reporting on his online newspaper to a significant audience of readers since as early as May of 2006. Dr. Sánchez has meticulously researched and written a number of pieces concerning the conduct of Marco Island's local government officials, and in particular the conduct of Plaintiff. Sánchez has personally made Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests upon entities such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, obtaining documents that he has used to confirm and support his truthful reporting of the sanctionable activities of Plaintiff. Needless to say, much of Dr. Sánchez's writing, which is highly critical of Plaintiff, is not very flattering. However, as a public figure, Plaintiff's actions are rightly held up to public scrutiny, and Dr. Sánchez's writing does precisely this, reporting accurately the goings on in Marco Island's Department of Public Works with Plaintiff at its helm.

In late fall/early summer of 2011, Dr. Sánchez's writings on Plaintiff caught the attention of a local television news reporter named Mike Mason in Lee County, where Plaintiff had recently been offered a position as director of the county's Department of Transportation. After reading Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper, the supporting FOIA documents (also available for download on Dr. Sánchez online newspaper), and a handful of conversations with Dr. Sánchez, Mr. Mason put together a piece that aired on television as a Fox 4 "In Your Corner" segment during the local news broadcast in Lee County. Plaintiff contends that the news report on Fox 4 resulted in him losing the at-will position that the Lee County local government had previously offered.

On July 8, 2011, shortly after Plaintiff's job offer was rescinded, Dr. Sánchez drafted and published an article entitled "Perennial Pursuit of Justice" on his online newspaper, in which he opined about the importance of documenting injustice and the misconduct of wrongdoers by the media. Plaintiff further contends that the "Perennial Pursuit of Justice" article comprises material that is defamatory.

Finally, Plaintiff has obtained a copy of a private email sent by Dr. Sánchez on August 19, 2011, notifying a number of individuals that Fox 4 in Lee County would be airing a follow-up piece concerning Plaintiff. Again, Plaintiff contends that the substance of the email is defamatory, claiming that Sánchez has damaged his reputation by sending the email.

In response to Plaintiff's complaint, Dr. Sánchez pointed out to the Court that Plaintiff's reliance on where Defendant maintains a residence for purposes of venue is improper for defamation claims, providing an affidavit of facts showing Collier County does not satisfy Florida's venue statute. Plaintiff took issue with Dr. Sánchez's evidence of venue, asserting that he had impermissibly put forth hearsay evidence concerning the location of first publication for the "Perennial Pursuit of Justice" article. In denying Dr. Sánchez's motion to transfer this action to a permissible venue, the Court adopted an Order drafted by Plaintiff, which affirmatively stated that "venue is proper in Collier County" – without any discussion of Florida's special venue statute for defamation actions.

In addition to his previously filed affidavit concerning the proper venue, Dr. Sánchez has, since this Court's oral ruling on his motion to transfer venue, compiled and submitted further sworn testimony and documentary evidence that conclusively establishes maintenance of venue in Collier County does not conform to the statutory standards for a defamation action. In response to Plaintiff's claims of hearsay, Dr. Sánchez has provided certified records of his regularly conducted activities, which overcome Plaintiff's objection. Now, based upon a more complete proffer, Dr. Sánchez moves this Court to reconsider its prior ruling, which cannot be supported on this record.

Legal Standards
1. Motions for Reconsideration

An interlocutory order may be modified or vacated by the trial court any time before final judgment unless the order has been affirmed by an appellate court during the proceeding. Alabama Hotel Co. v. J.L. Mott Iron Works, 98 So. 825 (Fla. 1924). A motion for reconsideration is the proper remedy to change an interlocutory order. Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Trawick's Florida Practice and Procedure § 15:4 (2011 ed.). The motion should detail the reasons why the movant believes the order to be erroneous. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(b).

Transfer of Venue

Objections to venue may be made by motion to transfer the action before the answer is served or by affirmative defense in the answer. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b). "It is plaintiff's prerogative to initially select the venue in accordance with the applicable venue statute; the burden of pleading and proving that venue is improper is upon the defendant." Eth-Wha, Inc. v. Blankenship, 483 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also Sheffield Steel Prods. v. Powell Bros., 385 So.2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Perry Building Systems v. Hayes & Bates, Inc., 361 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Velez v. Mell D. Leonard & Associates, 338 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The defense must negate all possibilities that the venue laid is correct and give sufficient facts so the plaintiff can determine the proper venue. B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Constr. Co., 237 So. 2d 790, 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (citing Permenter v. Bank of Green Cove Springs, 136 So.2d 377, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)). If conflicting facts are presented by the parties concerning the whether the proper venue has been alleged by plaintiff, the issue should be tried at an evidentiary hearing. Permenter, 136 So.2d at 379-80.

Venue is governed by general statutes, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 47.011, except when the Florida Legislature has provided otherwise. Special venue statutes control in the situations to which they are applicable. See City of St. Petersburg v. Earle, 109 So.2d 388 (2d DCA 1959).

Florida's Statutory Venue Choices for Defamation Actions

Florida has a specific statute that governs choice of venue in defamation actions. See Fla. Stat. § 770.05 (2011) ("No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel or slander, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication . . . ."). This statute limits actions arising out of a single publication or single cause of action to four choices of venue: (1) where the allegedly defamatory material was first published; (2) the county or counties where the publisher has an office used for conducting business; (3) where the publisher keeps an office for distribution; or (4) where the cause of action came into existence. Perdue v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 291 So.2d 604, 607 (Fla. 1974). None of the foregoing four choices include where the defendant maintains a residence, or where he claims a homestead property tax exemption.

Proffer of Business Records Under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6)

Plaintiff took issue with Dr. Sánchez's testimony that his article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," was first read in California, claiming that his testimony concerning the IP address that first accessed the article was double hearsay. Hearsay is defined by Florida statute as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Fla. Stat. § 90.801 (2011). Hearsay is inadmissible, unless there exists an exception to the general rule that permits it. Id. § 90.802.

Records of a regularly conducted activity can be admitted as evidence, even where they constitute out-of-court statements. Id. § 90.803(6). In order to rely upon them as evidence, the party seeking to admit records of a regularly conduct activity must lay the proper foundation to authenticate such records. Id. § 90.902(11). Authentication of business records can be achieved by certification of the records' custodian that the proffered records: (1) were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person having knowledge of those matters; (2) were kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and (3) were made as a regular practice in the course of the regularly conducted activity. Id.

Dr. Sánchez has submitted certified business records into the record in this action that show the IP addresses of each internet user who read his online newspaper on the date his article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," appeared on the newspaper's front page. Further, Dr. Sánchez has requested that this Court take judicial notice of the fact that one IP address in particular, 64.255.180.84, corresponds to an internet user located in Mountain View, California.

Verified Facts

By his signature below, Dr. Mario Sánchez verifies the accuracy of the following relevant facts to the best of his knowledge, which facts are consistent with the evidence that is currently in the record, and Plaintiff has not refuted the same with any evidence:

Dr. Sánchez does not have an office for conducting the business of his online newspaper in Collier County.
Dr. Sánchez does have an office for conducting the business of his online newspaper in Miami-Dade County.
Dr. Sánchez does not keep an office for distribution of his online newspaper in Collier County.
Dr. Sánchez does keep an office for distribution of his online newspaper in Miami-Dade County.
Dr. Sánchez first made all statements concerning Plaintiff to Mike Mason by phone.
During the phone conversations between Dr. Sánchez and Mike Mason concerning Plaintiff, Dr. Sánchez was in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
During the phone conversations between Dr. Sánchez and Mike Mason concerning Plaintiff, Mike Mason was in Lee County, Florida.
Statements made by Dr. Sánchez to Mike Mason concerning Plaintiff were not first made in Collier County, Florida.
The article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," which is cited in Plaintiff's complaint, was first published at 3:09 p.m. on July 8, 2011, via Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper located at http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com.
Internet users regularly read Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper.
Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper is regularly sent electronically to internet users who request it.
Internet users request a copy of Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper by submitting the uniform resource locator ("URL") http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com, via their web browser, to their internet service provider.
Requests submitted by internet users for delivery of Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper are received by the internet server where the online newspaper is stored.
The internet server that stores Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper is located in Santa Clara County, California.
The internet server that stores Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper is not located in Collier County, Florida.
Requests received from internet users seeking delivery of Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper include the IP address where each requesting user is located, which makes possible delivery of the online newspaper to the user's web browser. As such, IP addresses can be considered the digital equivalent of a shipping address written on an order form requesting delivery of a purchased good.
Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper is regularly sent via the Internet to the IP addresses provided by each user who requests a copy.
Dr. Sánchez's has knowledge that his online newspaper is sent to the IP address provided by each user who requests a copy.
Transmission of Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper to requesting users is a regularly conducted activity.
Dr. Sánchez records the IP addresses to which his online newspaper is sent at the time that each copy is transmitted.
Dr. Sánchez records each IP address to which his online newspaper is sent in the course of transmitting his online newspaper to each user who request such transmission.
It is Dr. Sánchez's regular practice to record the IP addresses to which his online newspaper is sent.
The first request after publication of "Perennial Pursuit of Justice" for delivery of Dr. Sánchez's online newspaper was made at 6:00 p.m. on July 8, 2011.
The article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," was first read at 6:00 p.m. on July 8, 2011.
The user who first request for Dr. Sánchez's article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," provided an IP address located in Mountain View, California, as the place for delivery.
Dr. Sánchez's article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," was first read in Mountain View, California.
Dr. Sánchez's article, "Perennial Pursuit of Justice," was not first read in Collier County, Florida.
Dr. Sánchez's August 19th email, which is cited in Plaintiff's complaint, was not drafted in in Collier County, Florida.
Dr. Sánchez's August 19th email was drafted in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Dr. Sánchez's August 19th email was not sent from Collier County, Florida.
Dr. Sánchez's August 19th email was sent from Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Dr. Sánchez's August 19th email was first read at or before 11:15 a.m.
Dr. Sánchez's August 19th email was not first read in Collier County, Florida.
Argument

Plaintiff has chosen the wrong venue for his claims and has attempted to co-opt this Court in his error. Plaintiff has proceeded under Florida's general venue statute, Section 47.011, for a defamation action, which is undeniably improper. If this were a contract dispute, or a negligence case, Dr. Sánchez does not dispute that the choice of venue based on where Defendant maintains a residence would be appropriate. See Fla. Stat. § 47.011 (2011) ("Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.").

Where Dr. Sánchez claims a homestead may be relevant to this Court's jurisdiction over him, or the subject matter of this action, neither of which has been disputed – jurisdiction is the power to determine a cause of action. However, not every place where jurisdiction exists over a defendant can serve as the proper venue for claims against him. Venue, unlike jurisdiction, is the geographical place where the cause of action can be determined. McGowin v. McGowin, 165 So. 274 (Fla. 1936); Deeb, Inc. v. Board of Public Instruction of Columbia County, 196 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). In defamation actions, residence of the defendant is irrelevant to the question of which geographical place is proper for determining the cause of action. See Fla. Stat. § 770.05 (2011) ("No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel or slander, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication . . . .").

As interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, the "single publication rule" limits actions for defamation. In particular, Plaintiff can only maintain an action against Dr. Sánchez for an allegedly defamatory publication in the county where the defamation was completed. In practical terms, this means that Plaintiff has only four options for venue with respect to each alleged defamation: (1) where the allegedly defamatory material was first published; (2) the county or counties where the publisher has an office used for conducting business; (3) where the publisher keeps an office for distribution; or (4) where the cause of action came into existence. Perdue v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 291 So.2d 604, 607 (Fla. 1974).

Dr. Sánchez has now submitted record evidence that negatives Collier County as the venue for all defamations alleged by Plaintiff:

Alleged Defamation	Statutory Venue Choice	County Established on Record
Statements to Fox 4 news reporter	(1) where the allegedly defamatory material was first published;	Lee County, Florida
	(2) the county or counties where the publisher has an office used for conducting business;	Miami-Dade County, Florida
	(3) where the publisher keeps an office for distribution; or	Miami-Dade County, Florida
	(4) where the cause of action came into existence.	Lee County, Florida
"Perennial Pursuit of Justice" article	(1) where the allegedly defamatory material was first published;	Santa Clara County, California
	(2) the county or counties where the publisher has an office used for conducting business;	Miami-Dade, Florida
	(3) where the publisher keeps an office for distribution; or	Miami-Dade, Florida
	(4) where the cause of action came into existence.	Miami-Dade, Florida
August 19th Email	(1) where the allegedly defamatory material was first published;	Transylvania County, North Carolina
	(2) the county or counties where the publisher has an office used for conducting business;	Miami-Dade, Florida
	(3) where the publisher keeps an office for distribution; or	Miami-Dade, Florida
	(4) where the cause of action came into existence.	Miami-Dade, Florida

It bears mentioning that Plaintiff's non-defamation claims – Count III (Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship) and Count IV (Injunctive Relief) – cannot be maintained on their own, as both stand or fall on the validity of Plaintiff's defamation claims, which are not properly brought in this venue. See Ovadia v. Bloom, 756 So. 2d 137, 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("[T]he single publication/single action rule does not permit multiple actions to be maintained when they arise from the same publication upon which a failed defamation claim is based."); and Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (same).

Conclusion

Having provided evidence that shows that Collier County, Florida, does not satisfy any of the available choices for Plaintiff's claims, Dr. Sánchez has now shifted the burden onto Plaintiff to present evidence to the contrary. Should Plaintiff succeed in providing contradictory evidence, this matter should be properly resolved by evidentiary hearing.

WHEREFORE, Defendant MARIO SÁNCHEZ respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order executed on December 20, 2011, which found in pertinent part that "venue is proper in Collier County, Florida."

What Will be Marco Island’s Contribution?

2011-12-15T19:39:00.001-05:00

Given the City of Marco Island's antagonism and indifference towards the environment, how will it respond – if at all – to the following request for participation?

-=-=-=-=

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 5, 2011

Task Force Established by President Obama Releases Final Strategy for Reversing Deterioration of Gulf Ecosystem USDA $50 million financial assistance for restoration projects announced as Task Force efforts shift from planning to action

Contact information: Alisha Johnson, johnson.alisha@epa.gov, 202-564-4373
For press inquiries on USDA Gulf of Mexico Initiative, please contact Jody Fagan (202) 720-3210

WASHINGTON –The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force today released its final strategy for long term ecosystem restoration for the Gulf Coast, following extensive feedback from citizens throughout the region. EPA Administrator and Task Force Chair Lisa P. Jackson, partnering with Task Force Co-Chair Garret Graves, made the announcement today during keynote remarks at the 2011 State of the Gulf of Mexico Summit in Houston. Administrator Jackson was joined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman and several other Task Force members.

The Task Force delivered the final strategy on Friday, Dec. 2 to President Barack Obama, who established the Task Force by executive order, to continue the Administration's ongoing commitment to the Gulf region. The group is made up of representatives from the five Gulf States and 11 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, White House Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy and White House Domestic Policy Council.

The strategy is the first restoration blueprint ever developed for the Gulf to include input from states, tribes, federal agencies, local governments and thousands of involved citizens and organizations across the region. The plan represents a commitment by all parties to continue to work together in an unprecedented collaboration to prepare the Gulf region to transition from response to recovery and address the decades-long decline that the Gulf's ecosystem has endured.

"After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, this Task Force brought together people from across the Gulf Coast in unparalleled ways to talk about how we tackle both the immediate environmental devastation, as well as the long-term deterioration that has for decades threatened the health, the environment and the economy of the people who call this place home. It has all come to this moment – when we move from planning and researching to supporting real, homegrown actions aimed at restoring this vital ecosystem," said Administrator Jackson.

With the release of the final strategy today, the Task Force marks the beginning of the implementation phase of the strategy by announcing new initiatives, including $50 million in assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service's to help agricultural producers in seven Gulf Coast river basins improve water quality, increase water conservation and enhance wildlife habitat.

USDA's multi-year environmental restoration effort, known as the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, or GoMI, represents a 1,100% increase in financial assistance for Gulf priority watersheds.

"Restoring the Gulf Coast ecosystem needs to begin immediately and USDA's assistance is an important first step in placing the Task Force strategy into action", said USDA Under Secretary Harris Sherman. "This collaborative voluntary effort will leverage contributions and commitments from farmers, communities, and all levels of government to improve water quality. A healthy water supply is not only vital for the people of the Gulf, but also for the estuaries, fisheries, and wildlife that are the foundation of the local economy."

The Task Force has also begun reviewing existing policy, program and regulatory issues that are slowing down restoration progress, particularly in the habitat restoration area. The Task Force will continue to explore innovative ways to implement restoration, measure success and support the restoration with science.

Additionally, the Task Force will also open a local office, headed by Task Force Executive Director John Hankinson, in the Gulf Coast in mid-December. Representatives from across the Gulf voiced their support for the work of the Task Force.

"To ensure the future health of the Gulf, its economy, and its residents, the nation must start the work of creating a sustainably healthy and productive landscape and seascape – not only stopping the ongoing degradation but beginning the process of reversing that which has already occurred" said Senator Bob Graham and William K. Reilly, Co-Chairs of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. "Working with the people of the Gulf, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has undertaken the challenge of developing an ecosystem restoration strategy to guide the long term collaboration necessary to reverse the trend of environmental degradation in the Gulf. The country needs to make the commitments called for. And it needs to make them now."

"The Task Force went to great lengths to involve local leaders in the fact finding process leading up to the release of the report" said Mayor Randy Roach of Lake Charles, Louisiana. "When you read the report it is obvious that they listened to what they heard and addressed our concerns in a very straightforward manner. This report is an important document that outlines the challenges of recovery and the opportunities we have to develop a true intergovernmental approach to address the needs and interests of the people of the Gulf Coast region."

"The Task Force's Strategy clearly recognizes the critical importance of the Gulf natural resources to our regional economy and workforce," said Michael Hecht, President and CEO of Greater New Orleans, Inc. "In partnership with all Gulf Coast states and several federal agencies and with full input from key parties throughout the region the Task Force has detailed a specific list of coastal restoration priorities that protects the businesses and individual livelihoods along the coast and across the country, in the fishing, shipping, energy production and tourism industries, that are reliant upon a vital Gulf coast."

"For the first time in man's history on earth, what we do, can and will determine the fate of one of the world's great treasures. The choice is ours", said Dr. Larry McKinney, Executive Director of the Harte Research Institute in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The natural resources of the Gulf's ecosystem are vital to many of the region's industries that directly support economic progress and job creation, including tourism and recreation, seafood production and sales, energy production and navigation and commerce. Among the key priorities of the strategy are:

1) Stopping the Loss of Critical Wetlands, Sand Barriers and Beaches

The strategy recommends placing ecosystem restoration on an equal footing with historic uses such as navigation and flood damage reduction by approaching water resource management decisions in a far more comprehensive manner that will bypass harm to wetlands, barrier islands and beaches. The strategy also recommends implementation of several congressionally authorized projects in the Gulf that are intended to reverse the trend of wetlands loss.

2) Reducing the Flow of Excess Nutrients into the Gulf

The strategy calls for working in the Gulf and upstream in the Mississippi watershed to reduce the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf by supporting state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches, and targeted watershed work to reduce agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients.

3) Enhancing Resiliency among Coastal Communities

The strategy calls for enhancing the quality of life of Gulf residents by working in partnership with the Gulf with coastal communities. The strategy specifically recommends working with each of the States to build the integrated capacity needed through effective coastal improvement plans to better secure the future of their coastal communities and to implement existing efforts underway.

Motion to Dismiss Joel Lawsuit Summarily Denied

2011-12-09T10:18:00.005-05:00

On December 6, 2011, this newspaper's motion to dismiss the Joel lawsuit was summarily denied by Judge Hayes.

For observers in the courtroom, Judge Hayes was not even listening to the arguments and asked no questions. He immediately announced his decision.

Judge Hayes was a friend of Glenn Tucker and offered a glowing eulogy at Tucker's funeral. And as we know, Tucker protected and condoned the violations of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act at the time when Joel was the Public Works Director.

Hayes at Tucker Funeral

Rony Joel Sham Lawsuit: Here’s Why

2011-12-03T09:31:00.001-05:00

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

ARNON RONY JOEL, Plaintiff, Case No. 11-2840-CA

MARIO SANCHEZ Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, MARIO SANCHEZ, by and through his undersigned attorney, in support of his Amended Motion to Dismiss, states:

I. Legal Standards

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6) requires the Court to dismiss a claim when it fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The Court must examine the Complaint, restricting its view to the allegations contained in the Complaint and treating them as true, with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the pleader. Blumstein v. Sports Immortals, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D 1885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). "[W]here no viable cause of action is asserted […] dismissal is appropriate." Gladstone, 729 So. 2d at 1005.

Defendant's second basis for dismissal, Rule 1.140(b)(7), requires dismissal when an indispensable party is not joined as a defendant in the action. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(7); Kephart

v. Pickens, 271 So. 2d 163, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the action is such that if he is not joined, a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights and liabilities of the other parties is not possible. Kephart, 271 So. 2d at 164, (citing Grammer v. Roman, 174 So.2d 443 (Fla.App.1965)). Where such a party is not joined, the Court shall dismiss the action. Id.

In the event that the Court determines that Plaintiff's complaint can be sustained in the face of Rules 1.140(b)(6) and (b)(7), then Defendant respectfully asserts that this case is currently pending before the wrong tribunal and should be transferred. Rule 1.140(b)(3) indicates that improper venue is a valid defense to a civil complaint, which may be raised at Defendant's option by either motion or in a responsive pleading. Tip Top Enters. v. Summit Consulting, Inc., 905 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Host Marriott Tollroads, Inc. v. Petrol Enters., 810 So. 2d 1086, 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(3). If Defendant makes a proper showing of improper venue, the Court should, if possible, transfer the case to the correct venue, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060(b). Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Nat'l Bank of Melbourne & Trust Co., 238 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (citing Foy v. State Rd. Dep't, 166 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)).

II. Argument

Mario Sanchez, a member of the media and a journalist with an obligation to deliver information and opinions on matters of public concern, has done no wrong. Yet, Plaintiff Arnon Joel has sued him for sharing information on matters of public concern – and his constitutionally protected opinion with his community. Joel's Complaint is typical of one filed in Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, often referred to as "SLAPP" lawsuits, and seeks only to silence Sanchez, to punish him for exercising his First Amendment rights, and to impose a chilling effect on other speech that the plaintiff does not like (a desire clearly communicated by Plaintiff's request for an injunction against Sanchez's speech in the future).

From its inception, Plaintiff's lawsuit is besieged by fatal errors. Contravening Fla. Stat. § 770.01, Joel failed to provide Sanchez with adequate pre-suit notice specifying the defamatory statements at issue, before commencing this action. The Court must dismiss this action on that basis alone, but there are many more reasons to dismiss the instant action. Plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action for defamation under either his libel per se or slander per se causes of action. Not only are Sanchez's statements matters of opinion or constitutionally protected rhetorical hyperbole, but Joel is a public figure who, as a matter of law, cannot be defamed by Defendant's statements.

Still, there are more deficiencies in Joel's Complaint. On the face of the document, Joel has not pled facts that justify this Court's award of an injunction against Sanchez. Joel has further failed to join an indispensible party to this action – Fox 4 News, the actual purveyor of the statements Joel believes to be defamatory. Absent the news channel's participation in this litigation, Joel cannot seek adequate relief for his harms, as the news station was as integral as the Defendant – if not more so – to the Plaintiff's perceived harms.

Together or individually, any one of these arguments are sufficient bases for this Court to dismiss Joel's claims. The fact that the case suffers from so many fatal flaws reveals the untenable footing of Joel's Complaint against the Defendant. Joel's Complaint against Sanchez is ripe for this Court's dismissal.

a. Plaintiff failed to provide requisite pre-suit notice under § 770.01 and its defamation claims are therefore barred as a matter of law.

Florida law requires plaintiffs to send pre-suit notice to defendants in anticipation of all defamation and slander actions. At least five (5) days before commencing such action, the plaintiff must serve notice on the defendant identifying the broadcast or publication the plaintiff alleges to be false and defamatory. Fla. Stat. § 770.01 (2010). This provision, which is intended to allow corrections or retractions by publishers and foster settlements in lieu of legal action, applies to all civil litigants in defamation actions. Wagner, Nugent, et. al. v. Flanagan, 629 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1993) (Interpreting Fla. Stat. § 770.07, but holding that all of Chapter 770 is "broadly titled Civil Actions for Libel" and holding that Chapter 770 applies to all civil litigants in defamation actions).

Courts strictly construe § 770.01's language to require service on the defendant named in the action, whether the publication or network that produces the allegedly defamatory content or the author or speaker who individually created it. Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that § 770.01 cannot be construed to "exclude reporters, editorial writers and columnists from the protection of 770.01"). The language of § 770.01 requires service on all defendants where the allegedly defamatory statements appeared in any medium as defined by the statute and precedent surrounding it. See Wagner, Nugent, et. al., 629 So.2d at 113.

A plaintiff's failure to comply with § 770.01 compels the court to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a cause of action. Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, 702 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), citing Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Davies v. Brossert, 449 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Cummings v. Dawson, 444 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Chapter 770 is inflexible and unforgiving. In Canonico v. Callaway, 26 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the appeals court upheld a dismissal of an action brought on the fourth day after proper notice was issued, rather than the fifth day, as specified in the statute, even where the statute of limitations operated to bar plaintiff from re-filing. Even a seemingly de minimis detour from 770's strict requirements mandates dismissal.

The fact that a publisher makes statements online does not excuse compliance with § 770.01, as the statute's "other medium" language has been held to apply to the Internet and online forums. Alvi Armani Medical, Inc. v. Hennessy, 629 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2008) citing Canonico v. Calloway, 35 Med. L. Rptr. 1549 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2007). In Holt

v. Tampa Bay Television, Inc., the trial court held that the phrase "other medium" in § 770.01 includes the Internet. 34 Med. L. Rptr. 1540, 1542 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 17, 2005) aff'd 976 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The court could find no justification for excluding the internet from the statute's reach, as it "has become a recognized medium for communication to the masses." Holt, 34 Med. L. Rptr. at 1542.

Most recently, the Ninth Judicial Circuit recognized the obvious --that § 770.01's "other medium" language applies to web logs, or "blogs." In that case, a blogger criticized a defamation plaintiff, and the plaintiff's refusal to adhere to § 770.01 mandated summary judgment in the defendant's favor. Comins v. Van Voorhis, Case No. 09-CA-015047-O, Order (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 29, 2011) (attached as Exhibit A). The Court determined that the Defendant's blog constituted a media defendant within the purview of the notice statute, which was entitled to pre-suit notice as a condition of the plaintiff bringing his suit. Id. When the Court found that Comins had not provided such notice, the entire case against Van Voorhis was resolved in the defendant's favor at summary judgment. The judgment included a tortious interference claim (which relied on Comins' underlying charges of defamation). Id.

In this case, Joel failed to provide pre-suit notice to Sanchez, whose allegedly defamatory statements were published in the Marco Island Blog. (Compl. Exh. A.) The Marco Island Blog is a "publication" or "other medium" within the purview of § 770.01 under Alvi, Canonico and Holt. Joel's Complaint does not specifically allege compliance with § 770.01 and, despite the language of Complaint Paragraph 11 – that "all conditions precedent have been performed, have been waived, or have occurred prior to the filing of this action" – the Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite pre-suit notice. Plaintiff has not, and cannot, produce evidence of such notice being provided, because doing so would constitute perjury. Sanchez's publication in the Marco Island Blog fits snugly into the protections of § 770.01, yet Plaintiff failed to comply with the statute. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's claims – as each and every one of them sounds in the tort of defamation, which cannot be raised without proper pre-suit notice – must be dismissed.

b. Plaintiff has failed to allege causes of action for defamation or libel, as Defendant's statements are neither defamatory nor libelous as a matter of law.

Plaintiff's Complaint is deficient in alleging claims of slander and libel per se – both forms of defamation – against Sanchez. To constitute defamation in Florida, a statement must be: 1) published, 2) false, 3) made with reckless disregard for the truth or knowledge of its falsity when concerning a public official, or negligently when concerning a private person, 4) the proximate cause of actual damages, and 5) defamatory (harmful to the target's character) in nature. Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201, 1214 n. 8 (Fla. 2010); Valencia v. Citibank Int'l, 728 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In this case, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to show that Defendant's statements are false, made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, or defamatory. To the contrary, Sanchez made statements of opinion – not fact – about a public figure that were true. Such findings can be made on the face of the Plaintiff's Complaint and attached exhibits alone, rendering further discovery, and progress in this case, unnecessary.

1. Defendant's statements were matters of opinion, not fact, and therefore incapable of being defamatory.

Only statements of fact, and not opinions, can be defamatory under Florida law. The Supreme Court has held that there "is no such thing as a false idea," ensuring that individual opinions are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 33940 (1974). Constitutionally protected statements of opinion are made based on information known or available to the speaker as a member of the public. Town of Sewall's Point v. Rhodes, 852 So. 2d 949, 951 (Fla. DCA 4th 2003); Morse v. Ripken, 707 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Whether a statement is one of opinion or fact is left to the court, not a jury. Morse, 707 So. 2d at 922; Zambrano v. Devanesan, 484 So. 2d 603, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Florida's courts have found these types of statements to constitute opinions in the past, such as a claims that a prominent businessman owed more than $500,000 in taxes and was under investigation by the federal government – even when the statements were erroneous. Dockery v. Fla. Democratic Party, 799 So. 2d 291, 296-97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Similarly, a newspaper's allegations of a country club tennis pro's poor skills and inability to assist members, were not defamatory, as they constituted the author's opinions regarding the pro's abilities and performance. From v. Tallahassee Democrat, 400 So. 2d 52, 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In both cases, courts determined that no reasonable person would interpret the speakers' statements as factual, and anything other than opinion.

Sanchez's statements about Plaintiff fit cleanly within this precedent and convey opinions

– not facts. As in Dockery, Plaintiff's employer, the City of Marco Island, was under investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") as a result of various alleged violations of federal environmental protection statutes during the Plaintiff's tenure as Marco Island's director of public works.¹During this investigation, the city was accused of violating the Clean Air Act and other environmental protection laws.²The dispute was eventually settled with a consent decree between the EPA, the city and another party.³

There is no dispute that those events specified in the EPA's public statement occurred. What is at issue is the Defendant's statements about them, found in Exhibit A to the Plaintiff's Complaint. Sanchez characterizes the occurrences listed in page 2 of Complaint Exhibit A as "abuses" and "a plethora of issues." The Defendant's statement goes on to describe the harms others suffered as a consequence of these events, and criticizes the city of Marco Island for conducting a "faux investigation" of individuals "fraudulently accused" of dumping asbestos-bearing materials into the environment during Plaintiff's tenure as a public official. The Defendant further mentions "sworn depositions that did not match reality." (Compl. Exh. A at 2)

These statements are not factual determinations made by a Court or arbitration panel, but the opinion statements of a citizen, taxpayer, and member of the media. Based on the information available to him, he had the right (under the fair comment doctrine) – and as a journalist, the duty – to inform others of what he knew, and his observations derived therefrom. Sanchez's statements made on that basis are not, and cannot be, defamatory. Town of Sewall's Point, 852 So. 2d at 951; Morse, 707 So. 2d at 922. The statements contained in Complaint Exhibit A represent Sanchez's opinions, founded on what he did know of the city of Marco Island's relationship with the EPA, and his reaction to the information available to the public concerning the same. As a matter of law, his statements could not be anything more than

¹ EPA, City of Marco Island and Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. Agree to pay Penalty to Resolve Clean Air Act
Violations (June 24, 2010),
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/37d1c01131caf7e58525774c00653
28d!OpenDocument (last accessed Sept. 23, 2011).
²Id.
³Id.

opinion, based on what he knew. As such, they are not falsifiable statements of fact actionable as defamation, but rather constitutionally protected expressions of opinion.

2. Sanchez's statements would not be interpreted as statements of fact by a reasonable viewer, and are protected as "Rhetorical Hyperbole."

The extreme language Sanchez used in his article (Compl. Exh. A) does not affect his statements' status as matters of opinion. Even if the words used by the speaker are incendiary and inflammatory, they still are protected as rhetorical hyperbole, as no objective recipient would interpret the statements as factual. Greenbelt Coop. Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 893 U.S. 6, 14 (1970). In Seropian v. Forman, a letter sent to 400 people accusing Plaintiff of being an "influence peddler" and receiving unlawful compensation was held to be rhetorical hyperbole, as none who read the letter would believe it to be a representation of fact. 652 So. 2d 490, 492-93, 496, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Indeed, to establish his claims for defamation, Joel must meet the burden of proving that Sanchez's statements of fact (if any) were false. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 11-17 (1990) (A plaintiff in a defamation case bears the burden of proving the falsity of the defendant's statements); Zorc v. Jordan, 765 So. 2d 768, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (same). Joel will never be able to meet this burden, given the statements' legal status.

Defendant's statements were constitutionally protected statements of opinion – hyperbolic comparisons and analogues that a reasonable reader would not interpret as statements of fact. The evidence submitted to the Court in Plaintiff's Complaint shows the rhetoric Sanchez used to make his point. (Compl. Exh. A) Sanchez invoked rhetorical comparisons to Argentina's Dirty War, Ronald Reagan's 1988 law that granted reparations to Americans of Japanese ancestry who were interned during World War II, and even Simon Wiesenthal, a famous hunter and persecutor of the Nazis. In that same vein, Sanchez criticized Joel for his conduct as a government official for the city of Marco Island and its role in a controversy concerning a massive asbestos abatement project that potentially affected thousands of people's health.

Sanchez's choice of language makes it abundantly clear that his statements are First Amendment protected opinionated rhetorical hyperbole. Describing how the city erected complicated systems to obfuscate the tangible environmental problems facing Marco Island, Sanchez invokes the name of Rube Goldberg, a famous designer of over-complicated machines that required many intricate and complex steps to achieve simple tasks. (Compl. Exh. A) There is nothing defamatory about that. Sanchez also uses baroque language to convey his constitutionally protected contempt for city officials – rather than statements of fact – when describing its actions as "faux investigations," "fraudulent[]," and "Machiavellian," and its victims as "septuagenarians." (Id.)

Defendant's use of such language does not constitute verifiably false facts, nor does such language color the facts, if any, relayed in his statement. Sanchez does not even accuse Plaintiff of taking such actions, but instead uses these descriptions to characterize the municipality's actions during Plaintiff's tenure as a public officer. Moreover, Sanchez conveys only his reaction to the events with words that capture his response, rather than the underlying events themselves. No objective reader of Sanchez's statements would believe, as a matter of indisputable fact, that the Plaintiff acted in a "Machiavellian" way, or that the city's investigation was "faux" by any means – these statements did not even address or identify the Plaintiff. (Id.) Sanchez chose this language specifically because it would be interpreted as his opinionated rhetoric, and simply would convey his reaction to the actual, underlying facts of Plaintiff's conduct. As such, the Defendant's statements are not untrue statements of fact, and cannot properly be the basis of Plaintiff's defamation claims.

3. Defendant's statements were substantially true, and therefore protected by the substantial truth doctrine.

In order to be defamatory, a statement must be false – a high threshold reaching beyond inconsequential inaccuracies. Florida courts have recognized the substantial truth doctrine as a defense to defamation claims, which protects statements where their "gist" is factual, even if not wholly accurate. Cap Publ'ns. v. Reakes, 840 So. 2d 277, 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat'l Fdn., 731 So. 2d 702, 705-06 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), rev denied 753 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2000). The directive of this precedent is clear: So long as a statement communicates true facts, it is not defamatory if it does so without perfect accuracy.

The statements Plaintiff complains of, found in Complaint Exhibit A, comport with public documents created by a government agency, which are judicially noticeable. In a statement released on June 24, 2010, the EPA acknowledged that the city of Marco Island had been accused of violating the Clean Air Act and other federal laws.⁴The EPA detailed the allegations against the city of Marco Island as follows:

• failure to conduct a thorough inspection for asbestos prior to the excavation of asbestos-containing cement piping;
• failure to provide timely written notification to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection prior to beginning the construction project;
• failure to remove the excavated asbestos-containing piping prior to conducting construction activity that would break up, dislodge or disturb the asbestos material;
• failure to adequately wet and keep wet the excavated asbestos-containing piping until disposed;
• failure to have on-site a supervisor properly trained in the asbestos regulations; and
•    failure to properly dispose of the excavated asbestos-containing piping and asbestos-contaminated debris as soon as practical.

⁴See EPA, supra, n. 1.
Defendant's statements comport with these allegations as reported by the EPA, and merely claim that such issues "came to light." (Compl. Exh. A) Sanchez's statements then list a series of wrongs allegedly committed by the city of Marco Island, which included "findings by the EPA that the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were violated." (Id.) As the city entered into a consent decree with the EPA concerning those exact issues, it was not untrue for Sanchez to claim that the EPA had made findings that the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were violated – after all, the city of Marco Island agreed to pay a penalty of $81,722 to partially resolve these claims.⁵

Sanchez's statements mirrored those found on the public record as well. In Sanchez v. EPA, Case No. 2:09-cv-00624 (Doc. # 1) (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2009), the Defendant commemorated the events that occurred during Plaintiff's tenure as Marco Island's director of public works. In response to the EPA not supplying information to Sanchez pursuant to his FOIA request, Sanchez filed suit against the agency, seeking information relating to a host of events memorialized in his Complaint (Doc. # 1 ¶ 6a-j). Though the events contained in Sanchez's Complaint are not verified as true, their existence on the public record is indisputable, and Sanchez is justified in pointing out the existence of such allegations – especially in light of the city's consent decree with the EPA. Speakers have a qualified privilege to report accurately on information contained in official documents – such as civil complaints – so long as the account is reasonably accurate and fair. See Rasmussen v. Collier County Publ'g Co., 946 So. 2d 567, 570-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Carson v. News-Journal Corp., 790 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
To the extent that Sanchez's statements may not have been fully accurate, this does not
⁵See EPA, supra n.1.
change their level of protection under the First Amendment, as their general meaning was truthful: The city of Marco Island was investigated, and it incurred liability, for numerous violations of federal environmental protection laws. In light of the EPA's own press release on the issue, as well as its touted consent decree with the city of Marco Island, Sanchez's statement concerning the city's conduct – and the EPA's consequences – is non-falsifiable. The misstatement of minor details is not sufficient to convert Sanchez's substantially true statement into one that is defamatory due to formalistic inaccuracies.
4.    Defendant's statements concern a public figure, who must allege actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth in order to establish defamation, and has not done so.

As a public official, Plaintiff is held to a higher standard in pursuing defamation actions against individuals. To prove defamation, a public figure must show that the false information was published with actual malice – knowledge that the statement was false – or a reckless disregard for the truth. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In Florida, a two-step approach is used to determine whether an individual is a public figure: First, the court must determine whether the person is involved in a "public controversy," or a matter that reasonable people would expect to affect people beyond its immediate participants, Gertz, 418 U.S. at 323; Mile Marker Incorporated v. Peterson Publishing, LLC, 881 So. 2d 841, 845-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Second, after defining a public controversy, the court must further determine whether the Plaintiff played a sufficiently central role in the controversy to be considered a public figure. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 323; Mile Marker, 881 So. 2d at 846; Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 480 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Plaintiff's Complaint establishes, through its Exhibits, that Joel was a public figure. In Exhibit A, he is referred to as Marco Island's "public works director[]," and then identified by name in Exhibit B. Plaintiff clearly is the individual at issue in Defendant's statements and, as a public official embroiled in a scandal involving numerous violations of federal environmental protection laws with far-reaching consequences, is a public figure under Florida law. Gertz, 418
U.S. at 323; Mile Marker, 881 So. 2d at 846; Della-Donna, 480 So. 2d at 75. As such, Plaintiff must establish – and the Court must independently decide on the record before it – whether Defendant's statements were made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 466 U.S.C 485, 511 (1984).
Moreover, as a media defendant, Plaintiff's burden in establishing the falsity of Sanchez's statements is constitutionally heightened. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 11-17. Where a media defendant's standards involve a matter of public concern, the burden of proving the falsity of each statement falls on the Plaintiff. Id. at 14. As detailed supra, only statements of fact, rather than hyperbole or expressions of opinion, are actionable as bases for defamation – but still subject to the Plaintiff's heightened burden of proof. Id. at 19-20.
Plaintiff vaguely articulates this standard in its Complaint, alleging that Sanchez made his statements "knowingly, or in the alternative, with reckless disregard for the truth." (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15) Sanchez, however, did not make the statements complained of in the Fox News telecast referenced in the Complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6) Nor were the statements Sanchez actually made defamatory. Most of Sanchez's statements were matters of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole about Joel's actions as they concerned Marco Island's violation of environmental protection statutes. To the extent any of Sanchez's statements were factual in nature, Plaintiff has not specifically alleged – nor can he show – that each of them were made with specific knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for their truth. In fact, Sanchez's statements were true, or substantially so, and can be verified with judicially noticeable information.⁶An erroneous interpretation of the facts neither meets the standard for actual malice, nor reckless disregard for the truth. Schiavone ⁶See EPA, supra, n.1.
Const. Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069, 1090 (3d Cir. 1988) citing Time v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 292 (1971).
Despite alleging that Sanchez acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, Florida law compels the dismissal of Joel's claims against Sanchez. As a matter of law discussed supra, Sanchez's statements are non-defamatory as statements of opinion and hyperbole, and are factually true as they relate to the Plaintiff. Despite Joel's allegations, he is a public figure and public official who, by operation of law, cannot show that Sanchez's statements are defamatory. Counts I and II of the Complaint must therefore be dismissed on this basis with prejudice.

c.    Failing to establish Defamation or Libel occurred, Plaintiff's Tortious Interference Claim must be dismissed, as there is no underlying tort.

Defendant's exercise of his free speech rights did not result in tortious interference with Plaintiff's business relationships or expectancies. To prevail on his tortious interference claim, Joel must prove four elements: 1) Existence of a business relationship (not necessarily evidenced by contract); 2) Defendant's knowledge of the relationship; 3) Intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by Defendant, and; 4) Plaintiff's damages as a result of that relationship's breach. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1995); Linafelt v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). As established supra, there is no defamation underlying the Plaintiff's tortious interference claim, and it must fail for that want of unlawful interference.
Yet, even if considering other factors, Plaintiff's tortious interference claim fails on its face as a matter of law. When determining whether a defendant's conduct is an intentional interference with a plaintiff's business relationship, courts consider the following factors:
1)    the nature of the actor's conduct;
2) the actor's motive;
3) the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes;
4) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor;
5) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the

contractual interests of the other;
6) the proximity or remoteness of the actor's conduct to the interference; and
7) the relations between the parties. Seminole Tribe v. Times Publ'g Co., 780 So. 2d 310, 315 (Fla. DCA 2001); Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So. 2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Central to this analysis is whether the interference is improper or not under the circumstances of the case. Seminole Tribe, 780 So. 2d at 315.
In Seminole Tribe, the court found that the paper did not engage improperly and unjustifiably interfere with the tribe's business relationships. Id. at 318. The court in that case reached its conclusion after balancing the business, social and political concerns represented by the plaintiff's and defendant's respective activities. Id. at 316-17. Similarly, in Smith, the court held that the defendant's motion for directed verdict should have been granted as a matter of law. 512 So. 2d at 230. The defendant's exclusion of the plaintiff from the defendant's workplace was justified under the circumstances and served the purpose of preventing workplace altercations, rather than depriving the plaintiff of a business advantage. Id.
In this case, the Court may evaluate the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff's tortious interference claim based solely on the materials presently before it. As established in the Plaintiff's Complaint and supporting Exhibits, the Defendant runs an online publication that addresses issues of public concern for the Marco Island community. (Compl. Exh. A) Among these issues is the diffusion of asbestos into the Marco Island environment as a result of the local government's actions, jeopardizing the health and wellbeing of the community's residents. As is clear from the Complaint, this is the sole relationship Sanchez had with Joel, and there is no allegation that Sanchez acted against Joel out of spite or for any improper purpose – Sanchez was merely discharging his duty to inform the community as a member of the media. The information distributed by Sanchez related to community and individual health in a direct and immediate way, as the dangers of asbestos are well known. Sanchez was not scoring points against Joel with cheap tabloid sensationalism about trivial shortcomings by Joel, but informing his community of a serious health risk – one that, incidentally, fell on Joel's shoulders.
As in Seminole Tribe and Smith, Sanchez's actions did not intentionally interfere with Joel's employment, nor did they interfere with his career to a degree greater than necessary as a consequence of disseminating Sanchez's message. Sanchez distributed information of grave social importance and concern. He made his statements directly to the public in order to inform them, rather than to Joel's superiors in order to incite a reprimand. These facts are immutable as alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint and, when balanced by the standard enunciated in Seminole Tribe, compel dismissal of Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint as a matter of law.

d.    As a matter of law, Plaintiff has not alleged irreparable harm sufficient to warrant issuance of an injunction.

Plaintiff's request for an injunction is premised on the erroneous assumption that Defendant's statements have defamed him. As demonstrated supra, this belief is inconsistent with the law. As his defamation claims fail, so too must Joel's request for an injunction, as there is no underlying unlawful conduct justifying the imposition of an injunction. Moreover, the relief Joel seeks – a muzzle on Sanchez's fundamental right to free speech, and to speak on matters of public concern – is so extraordinary and abhorrent in response to the Defendant's exercise of his First Amendment rights that such relief must be denied. Joel has not shown any evidence of harm, let alone irreparable harm. As Judge Moxley stated in a similar SLAPP suit hearing, "Injunctive relief is unavailable to redress a past harm or to restrain an actual or threatened defamation." eAppraiseit v. Crowley, Case No. 05-2007-CA027976 (Fla. Cir. 2007) (oral statements of Court).⁷In that case, Moxley was not simply speaking from the gut. He was citing well-established law. See Rodriguez v. Ram Systems, Inc., 466 So.2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Animal Rights Fdn. Of Florida, Inc. v. Siegel, 867 So.2d 451 (5th DCA 2004); Demby v. English, 667 So.2d 350, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ("It is a "well established rule that equity will not enjoin either an actual or a threatened defamation."); United Sanitation Services, Inc. v. City of Tampa, 302 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (same).
The reason that equity will not provide such relief is that it would constitute a prior restraint. The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint since Near v. Minnesota, 283
U.S. 697 (1931), A prior restraint is "one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence," are "presumptively unconstitutional." Republican Party of Fla. v. Fla. Elections Com'n, 658 So. 2d 653, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Post-Newsweek Stations v. Guetzloe, 968 So. 2d 608, 610-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (finding that classic prior restraints, such as temporary and permanent injunctions, are prohibited "even when substantial competing interests are at stake") (quoting Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993)). Demby, 667 So. 2d at 355; United Sanitation Svcs, 302 So. 2d at 435.
Injunctive relief restricting Sanchez's free speech rights is inappropriate because he has made no defamatory remarks. Even if he had, the weight of precedent strongly counterbalances Joel's request for an injunction. Assuming arguendo that Sanchez's statements were defamatory, issuance of an injunction by this Court would constitute an impermissible prior
⁷ Hearing transcript available at http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-06-28-Transcript_of_Hearing_on_Plaintiffs_Emergency_Motion_for_Injunctive_Relief.pdf
restraint on Sanchez's right of free expression. Guetzlow, 968 So. 2d at 610-11. Finally, Joel has not produced any evidence to establish the propriety of an injunction. Though Joel non-specifically alleges harm arising from Sanchez's speech, he non-specifically alleges that he has been harmed by Joel's speech (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11), Joel has not introduced any evidence of this harm, let alone sufficient evidence to warrant this Court impounding Sanchez's rights to free expression under the First Amendment. Accordingly, Count IV should be dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, this Count is so patently frivolous, so counter to every star in our Constitutional constellation, that it must be not only dismissed – but attorneys' fees must be assessed against the Plaintiff for bringing such a patently frivolous claim.
e.    Plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party to this action – Fox News Channel 4 – and must have its Complaint dismissed, as Sanchez cannot individually accord full and proper relief.

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to name an indispensible party, Fox News Channel 4 ("Fox"), to this action, and the Court should dismiss this action accordingly. By the Plaintiff's own Complaint, it was Fox that made the statements Plaintiff finds objectionable – including many specific statements that were not even made by Sanchez. To the extent Joel alleges that Sanchez made those statements, his allegations are in error. Yet, to obtain redress for their publication – if they are even defamatory – Plaintiff must join Fox to the action.
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require a Plaintiff to join indispensible parties to the litigation, or face dismissal. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(7); State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Svcs. ("DHRS") v. State, 472 So. 2d 790, 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kephart, 271 So. 2d at 164. An indispensable party "is generally defined as one whose interest is such that a complete and efficient determination of the cause may not be had absent joinder." DHRS, 472 So. 2d at 792, citing Kephart, 271 So. 2d at 163; Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So. 2d 472, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Where two or more parties share an interest in the outcome of litigation, or have a stake in the pending matter that affects the rights of each proper defendant, they are deemed indispensable to the litigation. In Aronovitz v. Stein Properties, the Third District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by not dismissing a case where every entity with an interest in a deposit receipt had not been joined as a defendant. 322 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Similarly, in DHRS, the First District Court of Appeal found that the appellee's equal protection claim arising from a reclassification of their public sector employment positions should have been dismissed because it failed to join the state agency that could accord them their desired relief. 472 So. 2d at 792. See also Troso v. Florida Ins. Guaranty Assn., 538 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (noting propriety of trial court dismissing Complaint where plaintiff had named insurer as defendant, but not owner of premises where underlying injury occurred); Roberts v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (affirming dismissal with prejudice in case where plaintiff did not join insured as defendant with insurer).
This case presents the Court with an analogous scenario. Plaintiff has accused Fox of committing a wrong for which Defendant is not liable. To the extent any statements on Fox's newscast could be defamatory, no such statements were made by nor attributed to Defendant – yet Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant liable for them. To the extent Plaintiff claims that Fox's statements harmed him, then it is Fox – and Fox alone – that may provide Plaintiff with adequate relief for those harms.⁸If Fox contributed to Plaintiff's alleged harms, then Fox must be joined to this action for it to progress, as both parties caused the Plaintiff's alleged harms. The weight of Florida precedent shows that attempting to hold one party liable for actions taken together – normally when insurers are pursued individually as easy targets or deep pockets – the Plaintiff
⁸ To the extent Plaintiff has suffered any harm due to the alleged defamation; Defendant submits that Plaintiff has not suffered any harm at all, as the statements at issue are not defamatory.
has failed to join an indispensable party. See Troso, 538 So. 2d at 104; Roberts, 355 So. 2d at 220. Accordingly, as Plaintiff claims that Fox has caused his harm, his Complaint cannot proceed without Fox's participation as a defendant. Only then will all the parties that allegedly harmed Plaintiff be joined to the action, enabling Plaintiff to be made whole for its alleged harms.⁹The Court should dismiss Plaintiff's entire Complaint as an appropriate response to this failure.

f.    Even if Plaintiff's claims were sufficient to survive this Motion to Dismiss, Fla. Stat. § 770.05 mandates that venue is improper in Collier County.

Florida has specific statutes that govern choice of venue in defamation actions. These statutes limit actions arising out of a single publication or single cause of action to four choices of venue: (1) where the allegedly libelous material was first published; (2) the county or counties where the publisher has an office used for conducting business; (3) where the publisher keeps an office for distribution; or (4) where the cause of action came into existence. Perdue v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 291 So. 2d 604, 607 (Fla. 1974). In this case, Collier County is clearly not a proper venue for Plaintiff's claims under the law.¹⁰

With respect to the allegedly defamatory statements cited in Plaintiff's Complaint, none was first published in Collier County, meaning that this county does not fall within the first venue choice. See Affidavit of Mario Sanchez dated November 23, 2011 (hereinafter, Sanchez Affidavit) ¶¶ 13, 19, 29. In fact, the statements that Plaintiff claims as the basis for his defamation action were first published in San Francisco, California, Lee County, Florida, and North Carolina. Id. Under the second and third possible venue choices for a defamation action,
⁹ Defendant again refutes Plaintiff's contention that the complained-of statements are libelous, but notes only the allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint. ¹⁰ On November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that Sanchez owns property in Collier County. Sanchez does not dispute this fact. However, it is clear that the rationale for this request is to try and establish jurisdiction. The Plaintiff is seemingly conflating the issues of jurisdiction and venue. Jurisdiction is not challenged in this Motion. On the other hand, Florida has very specific rules with respect to venue in defamation actions, and the Plaintiff has violated those rules.
Defendant published all statements cited in Plaintiff's Complaint from his residence, which is in Miami-Dade County. See Sanchez Affidavit ¶¶ 1, 5, 15, 21. Accordingly, Miami-Dade County is the only venue that could be asserted as a location where Defendant has an office for conducting business or for distribution. In any case, Defendant does not keep an office of any kind in Collier County.
Moving to the fourth option for proper venue of Plaintiff's defamation claims, an action based on Defendant's statements did not come into existence in Collier County. In defamation cases arising out of Internet communications, the tort accrues where the defendant's allegedly harmful acts first took effect. Fla. Gamco, Inc. v. Fontaine, 68 So. 3d 923, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The location of the defendant during publication is determinative of proper venue for a defamation claim. Id. As noted above, each of the statements cited in Plaintiff's Complaint first took effect in places other than Collier County. See Sanchez Affidavit ¶¶ 13, 19, 29.
Section 770.05 of Florida Statutes, by codifying the so-called "single publication rule" for defamation cases, specifically limits the choice of venue for defamation actions. In relevant part, the statute states:
No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel or slander, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication . . . . Recovery in any action shall include all damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all jurisdictions.
Fla. Stat. § 770.05 (2011). Accordingly, Plaintiff in this suit may not sustain a cause of action in this county based on allegedly defamatory statements made outside this county, by a speaker who does not maintain an office in this county, and which statements were first heard by parties not located in this county. If this honorable Court does not agree that Plaintiff's defamation claims should be dismissed, then it must – at a minimum – transfer those claims to a permitted venue, as mandated by Florida law. Defendant respectfully submits that Miami-Dade County satisfies at least one of the prescribed venue choices for a defamation action, such that Plaintiff's claims could be transferred to that county.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff's Complaint, and the manner in which he has pursued this litigation, are deeply flawed. As a prefatory matter, Plaintiff did not serve pre-suit notice on Sanchez, as required by Fla. Stat. § 770.01, and is thus barred from bringing suit. Even if Plaintiff's claims are allowed to proceed, each and every count fails for separate and individual reasons.
First, Plaintiff has failed to allege causes of action for slander and libel, both forms of defamation. As a matter of law, Sanchez's statements are non-defamatory for numerous reasons, and recognized as protected speech under several overlapping legal doctrines. Because Sanchez's statements were non-defamatory, there is no tortious conduct underlying Joel's tortious interference claim, and that cause of action also fails. Similarly, the absence of defamation from this case denudes Joel of his ambitions to seek an injunction against Sanchez. Even if Sanchez's statements were defamatory, Joel has not demonstrated his entitlement to an injunction on Sanchez's free speech rights – a classic prior restraint – based on facts on the record. Finally, Plaintiff declined to name Fox as a defendant in this action – despite the Plaintiff's complaint accusing Fox of much of his alleged harm. Based on the Complaint's many allegations based on Fox's statements, Sanchez is incapable of providing adequate relief on his own for statements made by a third person and published by Fox. For all of these reasons, this Court must dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.
Alternatively, should the Court determine that Plaintiff's claims are sufficient to survive Sanchez's Motion to Dismiss, then this Action must be transferred to a venue that is permitted under the law. Defendant asserts that Miami-Dade County is a proper venue that satisfies the statutory requirements for defamation claims in Florida.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ignores Environment Yet Again

2011-11-28T18:54:00.001-05:00

Florida Department of Environmental Protection … Ignores Environment Again

We recall how the EPA took control of the asbestos pulverizing and burying from the FDEP due to their incompetence and negligence and complicity in the violation of the Clean Air Act. We also recall how the FDEP summarily ignored City of Marco Island's pumping toxic effluent into the waterways … until the EPA told them to issue a Notice of Violation.

Hey, guess what? The FDEP is at it again doing what they do best … ignoring environmental contamination. This one near central Florida …

Howdy Randy and Sheriff Benton:

Randy if you are still working so that sorry outfit DEP, are they and you ready to "dance" again? Highlands County has a stockpile of ASR (Automotive Shredder Residue) bigger than the Highlands County Government Center out at the Arbuckle Creek Landfill. I am informed by a very reliable source that the pile is NOT over a liner, has no retaining ponds, no testing of runoff, no testing of groundwater except for the landfill monitoring wells, and Monitoring Well # 20 is showing high results for lead and other heavy metals. I can send some sampling analysis results, but I suspect somebody down in Ft. Myers already has them.

So, if the DEP response is to send good ole Bill Krumholtz up here to sweep the ASR pile under the rug or into the landfill and then look the other way on possible violations, you might want to think again. I'm sending the Highlands County Sheriff, her Chief Deputy and the Atlanta EPA a copy of this email. Any or all are welcome to request further documentation. You think DEP might send in the "DEP SWAT Team" (Special Way's (to) Avoid Truth) led by you? It's a good thing I'm not the sarcastic, SOB I was a couple of years ago, right? ;-)

Let me know what you need for details or documentation. DEP might try the old Native American (Indian) trick of "checking for themselves" a/k/a "investigating".

Should anybody ask... I'm making this complaint to benefit the health and safety of Highland's County Commissioner Barbara Stewart's mother, who is supposed to live out in Lorida. Documentation of the stockpile already exists, so it will do the County no good to deny it, nor will trying to landfill the ASR pile do them any good, it will just use up more landfill space for another hare brained scheme cooked up down in Ft. Myers....

Oh ya... Happy Thanksgiving to all.... Stay tuned, more to come.... (See what this cool weather brings?)

PHC

Rony Joel Lawsuit Activity

2011-11-26T08:43:00.003-05:00

Amended Motion to Dismiss has been filed. The amended motion incorporates a recent ruling from a Florida appellate court.

CLICK HERE FOR AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS

Neat New Nook

2011-11-13T13:35:00.006-05:00

Recently opened just 15 minutes away Marco Island. Peaceful out of the way offering spectacular elevated views of the Sea of Grass.

(click any image to enlarge)

Marco Island Sewer Project at a Global Perspective

2011-11-10T17:21:00.003-05:00

Where is the money coming from for the sewer project?

Listen/watch this video - same logic and same exchange between city council, "staff" and the citizens.

And we too are now in debt.

enjoy ...

Basic Human Rights not Applicable on Marco Island

2011-11-08T10:37:00.004-05:00

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to those that disagree with the local syndicate. For if you do state your opinion or your expression or even state the facts, you get sued, denigrated, besmirched, ridiculed or of course taxed until you shut up and leave.

(click to enlarge)

EPA Reinstates Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Requirements for Hydrogen Sulfide

2011-11-04T10:38:00.003-04:00

Editor's Note: The City of Marco Island released lethal-levels of Hydrogen Sulfide into neighborhoods during the initial phases of the failed STRP. Though the EPA did not require reporting, throughout the non-reporting period the EPA continued to list hydrogen sulfide as a gas that is toxic at microscopic levels and lethal at the levels that the City of Marco Island was releasing. So the City of Marco Island through the City Council, the then Public Works Director, the then City Manager continued to release the toxic gas at lethal levels knowing it was harmful – but just didn't need to report it. Not anymore –

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that it is reinstating Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide. This action is part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's ongoing efforts to provide Americans with helpful information on chemicals they may encounter in their daily lives.

TRI is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries and federal facilities. The purpose of today's action is to better inform the public about toxic chemical releases in their communities and to provide the government with information for research and the potential development of regulations.

Hydrogen sulfide occurs naturally in crude petroleum, natural gas, volcanic gases, and hot springs. It can also result from the breakdown of organic matter, and is produced by human and animal wastes. Hydrogen sulfide can also result from industrial activities, such as food processing, coke ovens, kraft paper mills, tanneries, and petroleum refineries. Individuals living near a wastewater treatment plant, a gas and oil drilling operation, a farm with manure storage or livestock confinement facilities, or a landfill may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen sulfide.

Hydrogen sulfide was added to the TRI list of toxic chemicals in a final rule published on December 1, 1993. However, on August 22, 1994, EPA suspended the TRI reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide in order to address issues that were raised by members of the regulated community regarding the information used to support the original listing decision. On February 26, 2010, EPA published a Federal Register document that provided the public with the opportunity to comment on EPA's review of the currently available data on the human health and environmental effects of hydrogen sulfide. After consideration of public comments, EPA has concluded that the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide should be reinstated.

This action will be effective for the 2012 TRI reporting year. The first reports for the 2012 TRI reporting year are due from facilities by July 1, 2013.

Marco Island Dewatering - AGAIN!

2011-10-31T16:51:00.006-04:00

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

2011-10-28T10:37:00.001-04:00

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

2011-10-26T17:41:00.001-04:00

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

2011-10-19T22:11:00.002-04:00

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!

2011-10-14T10:51:00.008-04:00

Enjoy.

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

Status: Joel “Lawsuit”

2011-10-13T12:27:00.003-04:00

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

2011-10-05T20:47:00.001-04:00

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

2011-10-03T21:33:00.001-04:00

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 …

2011-10-02T22:17:00.005-04:00

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

2011-10-01T13:00:00.001-04:00

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."

Rony Joel Lawsuit – Important Evidence

2011-09-30T13:59:00.002-04:00

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).

Rony Joel Lawsuit – the Answer

2011-09-29T22:21:00.001-04:00

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 …

Rony Joel Sues this Paper’s Writer/Author

2011-09-28T19:59:00.001-04:00

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 1^st 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.

Perennial Pursuit of Justice

2011-07-08T15:09:00.001-04:00

by Dr. Mario Sánchez

The famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal was asked why 60 years after the Holocaust he continued to haunt those responsible. As if dumbfounded by the question, he answered "The history of man is the history of crimes, and history can repeat. So information is a defence. Through this we can build, we must build, a defence against repetition."

Just last month and nearly 30 years after the end of Argentina's Dirty War where thousands disappeared and many more were tortured, those responsible for the cruelties – who are now octogenarians – were finally put on trial. Explaining why these trials are now coming to pass, an international human rights organization explained it this way: "… pursue[ing] justice for past abuses, these initiatives are the result of work by victim groups, civil society organizations, and individuals who set up a strong base of information and never stopped their fight for justice."

In 1988 President Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 that granted reparations to the Japanese and their descendants that were unlawfully interned during World War II – over 40 years earlier.

There is even now a movement seeking reparations for the descendants of American slaves. Despite how irrational this pursuit may seem, a federal appeals court has ruled that the case can go forward if the plaintiffs can in part "… prove the violation despite its antiquity."

It seems as if when it comes to justice and exposing those responsible for violating the rule of law, there is no time limit by virtue of the people willing to keep the pursuit of justice alive.

And so shall it be here on Marco Island.

This past week the acts and consequences of an aberrant decreed policy came back to haunt the city's former public works director. When an astute investigative reporter questioned the manner by which the former director was being hired by yet another public entity, he did a rudimentarily trivial search on the internet. A plethora of issues that occurred during said public works director's tenure on Marco Island came to light; the dumping, crushing and pulverizing of asbestos-containing material – less than ONE MILE from two schools, as well as the dumping of toxic effluent into the waterways and on front lawns, as well as the documented report of people becoming ill from toxic gases, as well as the building and installing of a Rube Goldberg contraption as a ruse, as well as the faux investigation of septuagenarians fraudulently accused of dumping tons of asbestos pipe fragments, as well as the genuine federal criminal investigation and subsequent findings by the EPA that the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were violated, as well as the sworn depositions that did not match reality, as well as the Machiavellian tactics by current and former "staff", as well as the … the interminable list of abuses all quickly materialized.

Therein was the information, "the defence against repetition", the "result of work by individuals who set up a strong base of information and never stopped their fight for justice."

Is assigning crimes to the perpetrators long after the events occurred simply the pursuit of vengeance? Is the quest by the Nazi hunters and the decedents of the victims of crimes throughout the history of man some sort of machination for retribution? Unlikely, for the eternal quest for justice is so that those responsible are held accountable for the everlasting ramifications of their deeds.

Besides, such is the purpose of exposing history sans remorse. For after all, did any city councilor or any "staff" member express remorse for those that fell ill from the toxic gas? Or for the untold marine organisms that died from the effluent? Or for exposing the illegal migrants that were hired to clean up the asbestos from what is now Veterans Park – shuffling through the dirt without protection to pick up asbestos shards? Or for the residents that inhaled the pulverized asbestos pipe? Of course not, and that is why the search for justice transcends time.

As it will be here on Marco Island. The city councilors and the current and former "staff" that actively participated in the promoting, hiding and obfuscating the of hazardous contamination will be long gone when the effects may be potentially realized. That is their legacy – a legacy buttressed by myriad documents, videos, pictures and in the memories of those too few witnesses with a conscience. But as we saw this week, their legacy is not far behind, within reach, to haunt them forever.

It would be naïve to suggest that there should be truth and reconciliation hearings for finally admitting, documenting, settling and laying to rest the crimes against people and the environment that were committed by the syndicate through their marionettes on the council and "staff". A cleansing of the soul if you will as experienced by South Africa after decades of Apartheid. Such a peaceful and honorable solution on Marco Island is unlikely given that the egos are too strong, the misdeeds too profound, the fourth branch of government missing from inaction, the mob-rule mentality of vacuous responsibility being the meticulousness of their sect, while crony apologists continue to denigrate and defame those that simply reported the crimes. And besides, most people here just don't care what happened then –though the fact escapes them that what happened then is affecting that which they value now the most – money.

We are therefore legated with the impasse of instability since the culprits will abdicate morality by attempting to let time hide their actions, while there will be those of us that will forever keep the information visible awaiting judgment.

As Desmond Tutu said, "peace without justice is impossibility." Hence there will never be peace on Marco Island until those that abetted, concealed or camouflaged the harm to people and the environment fall victim to the steady, haunting intimidation of justice. And as we saw this past week, when the suffocating pursuit of justice finally prevails, justice is served cold.

Final Post

2010-08-10T17:05:00.002-04:00

Throughout 1877 a band of 800 Nez Perce Indians fought off over 2,000 U.S. Calvary soldiers across 1,700 miles of America's northwest. Failing at myriad attempts of negotiating a just truce, nearly decimated, starving, and literally within sight of their sanctuary in Canada, on October 5, 1877 the Nez Perce gave up.

Their leader, Chief Joseph simply turned into the calvary and said

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. Hear me, my chiefs, I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.

And so it is with this author.

After over four years, zero funding support, 508 articles, thousands of pictures and hundreds of hours of video, this blog will go silent.

Victory in EPA FOIA Suit

2010-08-09T17:21:00.001-04:00

The EPA has released the last cache of documents resulting from our Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA) lawsuit. The efficacy of the FOIA suit has been validated – namely, we won since the suit forced the release of the previously withheld documents.

These documents appear along with all of the other released documents by selecting the EPA DOCUMENTS tab in this blog's header.

Without the suit, we would have never learned of the deceptions by current and former city employees and city councilors. More importantly we would not have learned that the city did in fact violate the Clean Water Act by dumping millions of untreated effluent into the waterways, and that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) aided and abetted in the violation.

In this new release we also see the "environmental specialist" Nancy Ritchie joining the syndicate-led chorus by denigrating the citizens that objected to or simply questioned if decentralized sewer systems are better than the STRP with such despicable puerile comments as "there is a certain core group of individuals that oppose everything" – the standard Arceri-Lazarus-Turk-Tucker-Minozzi-Trotter-Moss-Joel talking point. These are the very same baseless remarks that the FDEP employees were employing in their communiqué to the EPA in an effort to lie about their complicity in violating the Clean Water Act.

The EPA is not in a position to seek enforcement. The State of Florida naturally will not prosecute its own agencies. The City of Marco Island should censure the councilors that oversaw the violations as well as terminate all of those presently employed that were directly or indirectly involved with the violations. But we know this won't happen.

That neither the city nor the state will prosecute those responsible for violation the Clean Water Act is simply indicative of a government that does not enforce the laws due to political expediency. Harming the public health and impairment of the environment has been sanctioned.

But the good news is that the suit is over and the plaintiff (i.e., one person) won. Regrettably, the citizens of the moribund republic lost once again.

EPA Lawsuit Update & Conclusion

2010-07-30T13:43:00.003-04:00

Have received word that more documents have been released and are being forwarded.

With notice of this release, I have already agreed with the Asst. U.S. Attorney to dismiss the Freedom of Information Act case.

The documents will be posted on this blog upon receipt and such will be the next-to-last post.

EPA Releases More Documents: Violations Evident

2010-07-10T20:33:00.001-04:00

As part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA has just produced another approximately 200 pages of documents. This new set of documents covers primarily the dumping of effluent into the waterways and the release of hydrogen sulfide gas into neighborhoods.

This is the second production of documents made available as part of the FOIA lawsuit. The first production of documents consisted of approximately 500 pages as reported on this blog on June 23, 2010¹ and dealt mostly with the asbestos contamination.

These documents⁶ prove that the city² violated federal law.

Executive Summary

The city pumps raw untreated effluent from their dewatering efforts directly into the waterways, and releases hydrogen sulfide gas into neighborhoods.
Citizens complain.
Moss/Joel claim that the city has a permit to discharge untreated effluent into the waterways.
Activist citizens contact the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the EPA to demonstrate that the city has no such permit.⁴
Moss/Joel claim that the city's standard storm-water runoff permit suffices.
FDEP, under pressure from the EPA, issue a Notice of Violation (technically, a letter of Non-Compliance).
City attorney argues that the storm-water runoff permit suffices.
FDEP (under pressure) and EPA disagree.
City claims that pumping has stopped. Evidence sent to the EPA proves otherwise.
City then applies for Generic Permit for the Discharge of Produced Ground Water permit
which the FDEP summarily grants.⁵
EPA notifies FDEP that the effluent being pumped into the waterways by city requires a federal NPDES (Clean Water Act) permit because the just-granted discharge permit is insufficient and inappropriate.
FDEP and city ignore notice – continue pumping.

Violations of the Laws

Given the pervasive corruption in Florida (ergo the statewide grand jury), municipal vice and malfeasance is not illegal.

But what is certain is that the FDEP was required to demand from the city that a NPDES permit be obtained before any pumping of effluent into the waters from the dewatering was started. The city, under cover from the FDEP continued to discharge the effluent into the waterways despite being ordered to stop. When the mess was exposed the EPA clearly stated that a NPDES permit was required. The required NPDES permit was never obtained. The city and the FDEP violated the federal Clean Water Act.

As to the release of toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide gas into populated areas, it is unclear at this time if the EPA will pursue and enforcement action, as it appears that given the subterfuge being spun by the FDEP, they (the EPA) believed that the hydrogen sulfide being referred to by the citizens was the hydrogen sulfide suffused in the effluent, and not the one being released into the air. If true, this would imply that the EPA was incosiderate of the documents they were being provided with since the agency is in possession of myriad documents with airborne hydrogen sulfide gas readings.

Details of Interest

Evident in the documents is that this whole mess became very troubling for the EPA because the agency believed that the FDEP was simply "not vigilant". Then later it becomes obvious that in fact the FDEP was complicit in the illegal discharge because (in but one example) they claimed to the EPA that the effluent discharge into the waterways was not going to occur, and then once the dumping of effluent into the waterways was exposed it also became apparent that the toxicity levels far exceeded the allowed parameters.

What is known from piecing together previously available documents and photographic evidence is that Moss/Joel were disingenuous when they claimed that the pumping of effluent into the waterways had stopped or that the city had permits or that the odor was inexistent (the deceptions are many). This is not new. But also stitched together from several sources is that the FDEP alerted Moss/Joel as to when investigators were coming to Marco Island so that the pumps could be shut off before the investigators arrived hence deceiving them into believing that no pumping was occurring. There are even documents that have city operatives on a conference call with the FDEP/EPA proclaiming that no pumping of effluent into the waterways was occurring while the EPA was at the same time receiving via email photographs (with embedded GPS-generated time and latitude/longitude coordinates) and videos showing that the pumping was in fact occurring as they were speaking.

One of the salient communiqués proving that the city, in conjunction with the FDEP violated federal law:

Based upon my conversation with [redacted] of the NPDES Permit Section³, a permit is needed for the discharge to U.S. Waters. [redacted] felt that the Generic Permit for the Discharge of Produced Ground Water from any Non-Contaminated Site Activity did not apply since the discharge was previously found to be toxic to the juvenile shrimp species.

It is imperative to reiterate the above verbatim quote from two EPA investigators: the Generic Permit for the Discharge of Produced Ground Water permit summarily granted by the FDEP to the city when the storm-water runoff permit ruse was exposed WAS NOT VALID. Scrambling to show some permit so as to further the hoax camouflaged in the purposeful confusion, a permit from the South Florida Water Management District was obtained, which is also decried in the documents are utterly irrelevant. The FDEP and the city were so informed but Moss/Joel continued pumping.

As noted in another communiqué, a "criminal lead" was opened by the EPA. And in yet another email, EPA investigators ridicule Joel and the city attorney for suggesting that the standard storm-water runoff permit somehow covers the discharge of non-storm toxic effluent into U.S. waters.

The Obfuscation

Lying to the EPA, the conspiracy to hide the illegal dewatering, the slander and making disparaging remarks by certain current and former city employees as well as by the FDEP was known to activists at the time the environmental crimes were being committed, but now the documents bear proof.

In but one email exchange within the EPA, one agent writes to the other

"This statement is not true: 'The email we got from the EPA says everything looks real good, but please take care of these two things'."

Also of note is that while the FDEP was in essence running cover for the city, they were busy sending disparaging and making scurrilous remarks about the residents of Marco Island that dared to complain about the illegal discharge or about the toxic fumes. This tactic of denigrating concerned citizens is an endemic practice by the syndicate, but now we learn that it was well orchestrated by current and former city councilors and "staff". As in but one example, there is an email from the FDEP to the EPA where Marco Island citizens are disparaged is nearly identical words and substance to the statement given by Moss (and another undisclosed city operative) to FBI agent Matt Chester, and indistinguishable to the aspersions used by city councilors and their handlers in the syndicate.

Conclusion

The content can be validated by reviewing the 700+ pages of documents turned over by the EPA, as well as by correlating to city emails and documents released by the FDEP.⁶

But where does one go from here?

The EPA has acknowledged that the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been violated. Since the FDEP did not enforce the law, as they are required to do as related to the CWA, the EPA will step in to prosecute/enforce the law only if it is sued to do so – oddly enough, a relatively common occurrence. In the unlikely event that the EPA does act, this time around the city cannot throw Quality Enterprises under the proverbial bus since Moss/Joel took a hands-on approach to directing what is now known to be the illegal discharge. (Who can forget Joel's Rube Goldberg contraption to "scrub" the toxic effluent and filter out the hydrogen sulfide gas – it actually made matters worse.)

No one on Marco Island is going to sue the EPA. One lone soul has sued the EPA and is forever finished.

The FDEP clearly want this matter to be buried (pun intended as to how they were also complicit in the asbestos contamination) lest they themselves be prosecuted (unlikely given how Florida works).

Those responsible for lying, violating the federal Clean Water Act, making despicable remarks about Marco Island citizens, polluting the environment and harming the health of countless citizens must be censured and prosecuted. Herein is the roadmap in case anyone cares.

o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

References & Notes:
¹
http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/epa-turns-over-some-documents.html#links

² Hereafter when referring to violations or other illegal acts, the "city" actually refers to the current and former employees, and current and former city councilors, and their handlers in the syndicate that participated in the violations, illegal acts and cover-up. Namely a handful of individuals.

³ The NPDES is a section of the federal Clean Water Act that mandates that a special permit be requested for discharging into U.S. waters. See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/

⁴ At this point the activists were not aware that the FDEP was conspiring with the city or that it was making disparaging remarks about the citizens of Marco Island. Once this fact was realized, the activists ceased communicating with the FDEP and with the department's insider at the city, Lisa Douglass.

⁵ It is interesting to note, and unbeknownst to the activists up until the release of these documents, that the city's test for mercury in the effluent being dumped into the waterways was rejected by the authorities, yet there are no documents where the correct testing for mercury was ever done. It is possible that this too was "overlooked" by the FDEP.

⁶ All 700+ pages are at http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com. ibid the FDEP and City of Marco Island produced emails.

Asbestos Water Pipes

2010-07-08T10:40:00.001-04:00

As was reported by this blog two years ago, (see http://marcoislandblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/stupefying.html ) the water mains on the island are "AC" – asbestos-cement. And as reported in that same article, the then public works director, and his staff, noted that the city was not testing the water for asbestos being sent through those pipes.

As evidenced by the recent closure to one aspect of the long-running asbestos problem on the island, and in light of the current council chairman and city manager to clean up the endemic mismanagement and oversights by previous councils, it is time to address the water pipes issue.

And how much asbestos-cement pipe does the city have carrying drinking water? Sixty (60) miles.

The current/former utilities management is also concerned about the AC pipes. Note this email exchange:

From: Don Blalock
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:46 AM
To: Rony Joel; Gretchen Baldus; Bart Bradshaw
Cc: Steve Olmsted
Subject: RE: EPA/ AC Pipe

Rony,

This is my cost estimate for IT's, Gretchen Baldus' and my time for this project:

Don Blalock – Three weeks 15 Days $5900

Gretchen Baldus – 8 Hrs 1 Day $ 350

IT Staff – 4 Hrs ½ Day $ 170? ( I Don't know exactly what Jon or Mark's rate is but I think this is a fair estimate)

Total $6420

After discussing this project with Bart Bradshaw it is my understanding the EPA wants:

1) All the AC pipe displayed on a map (we can color the AC Pipe RED and all other pipes BLUE, or any color type you choose)

2) Labels' showing the GPS coordinates for the beginning point and ending of all AC mains runs.

If this is the case, I believe I can locate all of the runs without having to use C/D Staff.

Questions:

1) Do you want a static Map similar to Jim Miller's STRP connection PDFs which he places on the WEB? or

2) Do you want a dynamic map similar to Gretchen's Boil Order Notification Map where the consumer can search their address?

We probably could get this up within a month baring any unforeseen issues such as a utility event or a natural disaster. If we don't need to display GPS coordinates on the map, the time table and cost could be cut in half. Let me know if I am incorrect in my assumptions of this project.

Donald R. Blalock, Jr.

Asset Manager

Marco Island Utilities

771 E. Elkcam Cir.

Marco Island, Fl 34145

Office: 239-389-3997

From: Rony Joel
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:30 PM
To: Don Blalock; Gretchen Baldus; Bart Bradshaw
Cc: Steve Olmsted
Subject: EPA/ AC Pipe

Don, Gretchen and Bart

I need your help. We need to develop a cost estimate to locate accurately every AC pipe on the Island (about 60 miles) and put it on a city wide GIS map which would be accessible to every resident on our web site.

This would include crews from Bart team, Don developing the data base and Gretchen inserting into a GIS data base.

I need to have a cost estimate of how many hours of labor will it take to accomplish this.

I need to have this to our attorneys by Tuesday afternoon

If EPA accepts this project, we will have a year to implement – now all I need is a scope and hour estimate

Don,

Please see me so you can coordinate this project

Rony

Note that the figure quoted is not to replace the pipes, or inspect them for fissures, or to even test the water for asbestos – but to merely document where they exist.

Several EPA studies show that asbestos-cement pipes do release fibers into the water. In but one study, several factors attributed to the release of the fibers into the water, noting that "… monitoring results and pilot studies indicate that the A/C pipes do release these fibers into the water." Namely, from "Decay of asbestos cement in water mains".¹

Asbestos in the water mains presents two problems: one from ingestion and the other from contact with the skin (as when showering or taking a bath.)

According to the EPA, adverse health effects from ingesting asbestos have been documented. The Agency's list of contaminants notes that adverse health effects occur when there are 7 million fibers per liter (7MFL), resulting in an increased risk of developing benign intestinal polyps.² The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (a federal agency) found that some areas with asbestos fibers in drinking water have a "higher than average death rates from cancer of the esophagus, stomach and intestines."⁴

Asbestos on the skin causes itching, predominantly right after bathing, and can cause warts ("Asbestos Warts"³) and corns.

We call upon the independent city councilors to direct the staff to:

Identify and document for public review the exact location of these asbestos-cement water pipes
Regularly test the drinking water for asbestos in a statistically significant number of locations – where those locations are at the point where the asbestos-cement water pipes connect to homes and food-serving businesses.
Seek independent (outside of the city) expert(s) to evaluate the test results.
Make public those tests and evaluations in a timely fashion.

Health and safety must be the predominant concern of a government "For the People".

----------------

¹
Controlling Asbestos Loss from Asbestos-Cement Pipe in Aggressive Waters. EPA. Water Engineering Research Laboratory. Sept. 1985.

²
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#inorganic

³
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

⁴
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

Call for Referendum

2010-07-04T09:32:00.001-04:00

All civic matters that can have profound effects on the community should be decided upon by the residents of that community.

Such an approach reaffirms a vital tenet of a democracy that up until recently served this country splendidly because it puts the destiny of a community in the hands of where it belongs – with the people. Just as importantly, aberrant political forces are abated thereby preventing the divisive rancor and justifiable bitterness when costly and impinging initiatives are undertaken on misconceptions, outright lies, political machinations and the marginalization of people with opposing views – as we have suffered repeatedly here on Marco Island.

Let's not repeat those mistakes again.

To that end the city council is asked to authorize the placement of two non-binding questions on the upcoming November 2, 2010 ballot:

Do you support a high school on Marco Island?
Do you support a high school on Tract K?

Prior to the election one or two moderated town hall meetings can be held where the proponents, the detractors and the residents desirous in becoming apprised of both sides of this issue can participate in an open discussion.

As there are legitimate questions concerning a high school that can impact this community, the community should be allowed to opine in a formal and quantifiable manner.

Marco Island Sued in Federal Court

2010-07-02T10:33:00.002-04:00

As reported by CBS- WINK News.

Interesting case: public safety vs. probable cause for unreasonable searches and seizures (4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)?

Water Pipes Ignored

2010-06-30T10:53:00.007-04:00

Several years ago this blog exposed the testimony from the public works director that the water pipes on Marco Island were fissured. These pipes, like the ones removed from Collier Boulevard and pulverized and buried, are made with asbestos.

Additional admissions followed: the water is NOT tested as to asbestos fibers.

Like everything else in the cabbage patch, a collective yawn from the vegetables, with the exception of the Marco Zealots that denied, denigrated and argued merely to not have to face that their favorite local vomitorium was using contaminated water.

Now, read this:

400,000 Miles of Drinking Water Pipes
May Have Been Made With The Deadly Substance by Barbara Robson

Prospect is chilling: by best estimates, about 20 million people have had significant exposure to cancer causing asbestos on the job. Three hundred thousand Americans are expected to die of asbestos related cancer in the next twenty to thirty years. Now, the deadly substance is contaminating drinking water around the continent.

Now, alarming levels of invisible, needle like fibers of asbestos have been discovered in tap water. Much of it comes from an estimated 400,000 miles of asbestos cement water pipe. Enough to circle the globe sixteen times. Buried beneath hundreds of North American cities.

Yet scientists and government officials can not agree on how serious this hazard actually is, or even on what levels are acceptable. "We believe asbestos breathed is a definite carcinogen", says Dave Ryan, a press officer for the Environmental Protection Agency, "but as far as asbestos in water, the jury is still out".

The people of Woodstock NY know the worry first hand. In late 1985, so much asbestos was in the tap water that it clogged the town's pipes. Health officials warned citizens not to drink the water, to limit showers and to keep asbestos contaminated water out of humidifiers.

Tara Roberts, a thirty one year old business woman and mother, is the leader of the citizen's group Asbestos Free Woodstock. When she first heard Woodstock's health warning, she thought of her one year old daughter, who had had a cold. On her pediatricians advice she'd covered the crib and put a vaporizer beside it.

"I realized that the vaporizer was probably putting asbestos into the air she breathed," Robers grimly recalls. "I was horrified." For over a year, she has hauled gallons of clean water home, taken dirty clothes to a laundromat that uses well water and showered at the houses of friends with safe water.

Roberts states the 1980s message from the famous town of Woodstock: "Any community with asbestos cement pipe either has a problem or will soon have one."

In the past decade, asbestos contamination in drinking water has been discovered in communities throughout North America. In 1982, Department of Health and Human Services survey of 538 US cities showed sixty five percent of them had some asbestos in their water. Almost nine percent had levels that health experts say should have signaled concern.

In Connecticut, a state that banned installing new asbestos pipes seven years ago,
900 miles of asbestos laden pipe is still in the ground, supplying drinking water for over 600,000 people. The Detroit News informed 4 million water drinkers that 1100 miles of the pipe that lay beneath them showed more than 3 million fibers in a quart of tap water.

Asbestos cement water pipes may be anywhere in North American, from Winnipeg Canada to Texas, and, depending on its condition may cause people to swallow from a few hundred to hundreds of millions of fibers every day.

Unfortunately all too little is being done. Water utilities typically deny any risk for fear of liability. Occasionally the utilities even deny they used asbestos cement pipe. Two decades ago, asbestos cement pipe producers, including former industry giant Johns-Manville, attempted to fix the problem. With Food and Drug Administration approval, they sprayed a vinyl liner inside asbestos pipe and subsequently sold miles of treated pipe throughout New England. A few years ago, tetrachloroethylene, a chemical known to produce cancer in test animals was found to be leaching from the vinyl lining into the water. By 1980 when Manville finally took its vinyl lined asbestos pipe off the market, 1000 miles were buried in New England and New York.

Asbestos cement pipe producers paid for reports that advised water utilities to treat highly acidic water flowing through their pipes. Acidic water can cause the cement to disintegrate, which can result in the release of asbestos fibers.

On almost all fronts denial of the asbestos hazard in tap water seems to run deep. In ostrich like fashion city officials seem to be pretending that because they can't see the asbestos fibers in the water, little need be done.

Winnipeg, a prairie city of over 600,00 is a case in point.

Sixteen years ago, Dr. Francis Konopasek, a physics professor at the University of Manitoba studying asbestos levels in wine and beer wondered if the deadly mineral might be making its way into Winnipeg's drinking water. Upon inquiring he was told, incorrectly, that asbestos pipe was only used to carry sewage, not water. In 1979, a Canadian government report showed that Winnipeg's drinking water was indeed tainted by asbestos. The city had almost 400 miles of asbestos cement pipe in the ground for nearly half a century. Over the next few years Winnipeg tested asbestos levels in its drinking water. In 1983, the year before sampling was stopped, a quart of Winnipeg drinking water contained 12 million fibers.

In the winter of 1986, facing public outcry, the city finally banned further installation of asbestos cement water pipe. But it also brought in Joseph Cotruvo, director of criteria and standards in the EPA's office who gave a different view of the risk. "A multi million dollar study found the weight of evidence is slight that ingested asbestos causes cancer". Not surprisingly, environmentalists were unconvinced.

Unfortunately industry and government officials have been able to hide behind the fact that no adequate studies exist to measure the debilitating effects of drinking asbestos contaminated water. Dr. Irving Selikoff, the world's leading expert on asbestos related disease says that there are sound scientific reasons to suspect a cancer risk from asbestos in drinking water.

In November of 1985 the EPA proposed a nationwide standard for asbestos in drinking water. It stated that consumer protection was needed only when more than 7 million fibers per quart were found, and only when those fibers were long, which means longer than ten microns. In other words the EPA was assuring everyone that hundreds of millions of fibers shorter than ten microns were dandy to swallow!

To get to that dubious position the EPA shunted aside its own 1980 estimate of risk, as well as the advice of its own science advisory board and the opinion of the National Research Council. Instead it turned to a single animal study showing that asbestos Feb. in pellet form to rats was barely carcinogenic.

The author of that study, Ernest McConnell of the National Toxicology Program has acknowledged his surprise. "We would never regulate fibers longer than ten microns, based on my asbestos findings".

According to Mount Sinai's Dr. Landrigan, the EPA is misguided in its attempt to pretend that the short fibers are benign. Furthermore, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group of scientists and lawyers with a strong track record in fighting for clean water supplies, charges that the EPA is allowing a risk 10,000 times greater than is prudent.

Also in November 1985, the EPA officially conceded that humidifiers could add to the hazard posed by asbestos contaminated water.

In drinking water the cancer risk seems to depend on the amount of asbestos swallowed. When you take a little asbestos and send it out to other parts of the body no one site is going to have very much, therefore the risk theoretically should be low. Asbestos has however, one very dangerous quality, as it accumulates in the body; the microscopic fibers lodged in tissues can remain like little time bombs and cause cancer years later. Since asbestos exposure is cumulative, young people are in particular need of protection. "Adults have three or four decades to develop cancer after exposure", says Dr. Landrigan. "The kids have six or seven. this means that a smaller dose of a carcinogen is as dangerous to the kids as a larger dose of it is to adults".

Controlling asbestos so that standards are met is critical. In Woodstock, pipes crumbled so badly that the proposed standard was exceeded. In one 1985 sample, 300 million fibers of every length were found per quart.

As thousands of other North Americans become suspicious of what level of asbestos may be in their drinking water, the big question is how to take preventive measures. At the very least, water districts should be required by law to tell consumers what type of pipe transports their precious commodity and before major problems erupt they should be required to test their water. If necessary districts should be required by law to quickly remove the pipe, just as schools have been required to remove asbestos pipe and insulation/tiles. Failure to do so dooms millions of people to become test animals in a massive biological experiment involving a known carcinogen.

As long as the now "former" director of Public Works (now head of the Water and Sewer department) is still employed by the city, and his defenders in the syndicate continue to influence decisions, Marco will also follow the ostrich approach (as noted in the article above).

Hurry on down to that buffet!

Another Environmental Problem on Marco Island

2010-06-26T19:14:00.007-04:00

Saddling San Marco Rd. around the Key Marco entrance are two swaths of dead mangroves. Despite being evident for years, no action to alleviate the cause has been undertaken by the plethora of governmental layers purportedly in place to prevent such problems. That they caused the dead zone is nothing new.

It appears that the cause is due to the natural flow being blocked by road work. Whatever the reason, the resolve - if any - is exactly where?

Aren't we all glad the the city and the county and the state and the federal government and several private environmental organizations are all in place to prevent and fix these problems!

(click on any image to view a high-definition picture. )

More City Personnel Changes

2010-06-25T22:07:00.002-04:00

THE CITY
OF
MARCO
ISLAND

50 Bald Eagle Drive

Marco Island, FL 34145

Telephone: 941-389-5000 – Fax: 941-389-4359

DATE: June 25, 2010

TO: City Council

FROM: James C. Riviere, PhD, Interim City Manager

RE: Organizational Re-Alignment of Public Works and Marco Island Water & Sewer Department

Effective this date, I am announcing the following re-structuring of city departments.

Mr. Tim Pinter is promoted to Director of Public Works. Included in the Public Works Division is the Collection and Distribution (C&D) operations for water and sewer. Thereby, city right-of-way (ROW) and all utility field operations will report to Mr. Pinter.

The Marco Island Water and Sewer Department is established with Rony Joel as General Manager. Mr. Joel is responsible for all water and sewer plant operations which include the north water plant, the south water plant, the wastewater treatment plant and the Marco Shores wastewater treatment plant.

Both Mr. Pinter and Mr. Joel will promulgate more detailed organization announcements.

Asbestos Remediation Reports

2010-06-25T12:04:00.003-04:00

These are the reports that the EPA relied on to "conclude" the violation of the Clear Air Act by Quality Enterprieses & city employees (current and former).

Abestos Remediation Reports - (click link)

Careful reading (not that anyone will do so - akin to how the modern-day politicians and citizens DONT read legislation) of these reports is quite revealing.

EPA Turns Over (some) Documents

2010-06-23T20:24:00.003-04:00

Pursuant to our Freedom of Information Act suit brought against the EPA, late last week the agency turned over approximately 500 pages of documents.

An interim victory of sorts.

In the process of scanning these documents so as to make them available here on the blog. Will advise the readers when the document cache will become available.

In analyzing these documents, some are quite disturbing. One series in particular reveals, when taken into account previously available documents, how city operatives, the syndicate and city employees conspired with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to malign the citizens that were objecting to the toxic gas and the effluent being dumped into the gulf. (A dedicated post will be made on this issue.)

There are still some additional documents sought ... so, onward.

Again, an interim victory of sorts.

Gee, What a Coincidence

2010-06-22T21:20:00.003-04:00

The readers of this blog are aware of the near-identical situation in Highlands County (northwest of Lake Okeechobee).

There too was asbestos contamination, a morally and intellectually vacuous "enforcement", one Don Quixote tilling at the windmills of corrupt bureaucracies, and of course the same denigrate-the-citizens-and-don't-protect-the-environment Florida Department of Environmental "Protection".

Yesterday the county commissioners fired the county administrator (county equivalence to city councilors firing a city manager).

Check out http://www.newssun.com/news/0623-eb-wright-termination

As they used to say in the cold war, the dominoes will fall.

Stay tuned in for more good news.

Time is Running Out

2010-06-21T20:21:00.001-04:00

By Roger Hall

Dear Council and Concerned Citizens,

It has been over a month since I raised my concern that we should be taking strong action to protect our island and our beaches. I advocated procuring hard boom material while it is still available as well as absorbent boom material, an oil absorbent felt like 5' fence material that would be installed in the water and microbes that would be used to eat the oil that either approaching us or is able to get here. I spoke before the council two weeks ago and informed the council that I had spoken with several suppliers and all of those materials were readily available. The longest lead time was for hard boom material and that was 4 weeks. That same supplier had sold $5 million in materials, representing 50 truck loads to various communities in the Keys and was busy filling that order.

Since that time the following has happened:

Nancy Ritchie, our environmentalist, appeared before the council and assured them that we had 47,000 feet of boom material earmarked for Marco Island. When asked where it was she didn't have any idea. Ronny Joel informed the council that we were going to have 6 big dumpsters to receive the clean up and he had purchased thousands of gloves, bags, and scoopers to use in the clean up. No provisions for prevention were offered

This subject was added to the previously scheduled special meeting to be held the following evening in order to more fully explore our options. That meeting was attended by a representative from the county but curiously was not attended by our environmentalist. It was like having a meeting to discuss an approaching forest fire by not having the fire chief there.

The county representative presented the facts that:

1. There wasn't any boom material reserved for Marco Island that he was aware of.

2. The county was going to protect our beaches by installing 6 miles of hay bales end to end, that would be staked down above the high water mark that were going to protect our beaches from tar balls. When asked how thousands of hay bales placed above the high water mark were going to prevent oil, which is floating in the water, from getting on our beaches, the representative didn't have any answer. When asked where these thousands of hay bales were being stored, again, nobody knew.

3. A plan that was developed some months ago was presented. The county has taken the position that we need to protect the environmentally sensitive areas. the Rookery, and that we can clean up the developed areas later.

4. A map was presented that outlined the oil disaster plan. Unfortunately, while it contained a lot of marks that showed something was supposed to happen, the county representative could not remember what they meant.

BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NO PLAN!

The agenda for tonight council meeting contains a provision for an update on the oil spill. I don't see any action items relating protecting us from the approaching spill.

The only thing that has saved our island to date is the fact that this occurred in the summer, when the winds are light and have been primarily blowing from the south, pushing the oil north. If this had occurred during the winter months when the winds blew from the west, north west, for weeks at a time, we would be looking like Louisiana. There is over 100 million gallons of oil swashing around in the gulf, it is growing by millions of gallons a day, and it will continue to do so for months. We have a respite but the oil is coming sooner or later. The loop current will carry the oil south, 100 miles off our coast, but it will only take a few days of strong westerly winds to put it on our island.

During the last council meeting it was decided to wait and see what the communities to the north were doing to deal with this spill and take advantage of their experience.

It is now apparent that BP, the Coast Guard, and the federal government are all way behind the curve in planning for prevention. As documented on every news show and in today's papers, more and more of these communities are taking matters in their own hands. That is the lesson.

Tonight, you are going to approve $500,000 for a shed. Wouldn't it make sense to spend that money on protecting our island and its 1 billion dollar tax base?

Thank you,

Roger Hall

Marco Island

Iron Rhino

2010-06-18T20:40:00.003-04:00

On the corner of state road 92 (San Marco Rd.) and US 41 (Tamiami Trail), the Iron Rhino Saloon is a welcomed outpost just a few minutes outside of Marco Island. Serves great fresh food (the gyros and burgers are phenomenal), friendly genuine service, inexpensive and does not use water from Marco Island!

Fun and friendly ... try it. (click on any image to enlarge into HD pictures).

Aquifer - At Risk

2010-06-17T11:39:00.004-04:00

Please watch this highly informative and animated video about how our aquifer is at risk - from many sources, most notable of which are from sewer treatment plants that use deep injection wells - like the one Marco Island uses.

Make sure your speakers are ON.

CLICK HERE FOR PRESENTATION

EPA Settlement Reviewed

2010-06-13T23:16:00.001-04:00

By Karen Glaub

Tuesday, Oct.8, 2010, our city officials signed an agreement worked out by Dr. Riviere with the EPA and Quality Enterprises to settle the charges the EPA brought against them for mishandling asbestos contaminated material from the Collier Blvd reconstruction project. While many of us are glad that the agreement was made which kept the Marco Island taxpayers from having to pay any fines, we must look with open eyes at the whole picture.

There has been a large amount of money expended from our city coffers for legal fees to Lewis Longman & Walker, and for cleanup of site C more than once, because former City Manager Bill Moss said the city staff asked Quality Enterprises to put the concrete pipes there to hold down a mulch pile, which somehow mysteriously became crushed into fragments. Also we have never seen an accounting of the city's landfill account which could have been involved in disposal of the loads of a/c soil brought there. It is a costly process to dispose of hazardous materials. Time and time again we were told by Mr. Moss that the costs of the cleanup would be paid by Quality Enterprises. Indeed the CARES settlement required that the contractor would reimburse the city for all expenses connected with the remediation of the asbestos contamination of the three parcels that make up the park, and for any remediation of asbestos contamination needed now and in the future for any part of Collier Boulevard. Did it happen?

This latest agreement which is available for viewing on the website www.marcoislandblog.blogspot.com, also tells us that no wrongdoing is admitted by any party and both Quality Enterprises and the City of Marco Island are absolved from further liability. This indicates that no payments will be forthcoming from Quality Enterprises for the expenses the city paid to the law firm Lewis Longman & Walker, or for further cleanup of the Veterans Park site should any more fragments surface in the future. The site has been blessed by the EPA as clean and hopefully it is, for the sake of future generations.

The mishandling of the asbestos contaminated pipe which was pulled up from underneath Collier Blvd during the reconstruction of that street, was only brought to light by former resident Ed Foster, and CARES, a citizens action group. For what they did, they were attacked and vilified by some who did not want to know the truth, but, in reality, if not for their brave actions, the mishandling would have gone on for much longer and proper disposal of it would never have taken place at all, and so we all owe these people a loud thank you for what they did.

The public officials that allowed this to happen in our midst, were careless in their discharge of their duties and were never punished so we can only hope it was an educational event that they learned something from. We hope they will be more careful in their selection of the contractors and vendors our city does business with and will put the health and safety of the residents above all else. Perhaps our City Council will remember this event and be vigilant going forward, but residents must also pay attention and take action when necessary, so nothing like this ever happens again.

EPA Asbestos Settlement Agreement

2010-06-10T15:54:00.002-04:00

This is the settlement agreement between the City of Marco Island, Quality Enterprises and the United States Environmental Protection Agency in regards to the violation of the Clean Air Act due to the asbestos contamination.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT

Applying Reason to the High School Initiative Discussion

2010-06-06T23:41:00.001-04:00

By Dr. Mario Sánchez

One of the greatest characteristics of the American success story is the freedom to choose. Allowing individuals to choose nearly everything in their lives has created a rich, diverse and prosperous way of life. And part of the ability to choose comes from the freedom to create a choice when implementing an idea by which something can be improved upon.

When it is axiomatic that allowing people to chose almost anything improves the collective American way of life, then it is perplexing why there is so much derision from certain quarters when individuals chose where to send their children to school. Equally curious is the aversion against those that chose to developed what they believe to be an improved approach to the enduring problem of how best to teach children.

But as with all issues, the honest apply a level of intellectual curiosity in vetting the rationale by which the self-evident, in this case choice, is criticized. To wit, herein are the arguments.

But first, two disclosures. First, I am a professional teacher, a tenured professor of computer science, informatics and bioinformatics. What this means is that I dedicate at the minimum 60 hours per week to undergraduate and graduate level students, in addition to the myriad administrative issues associated with the country's largest and highest rated college. While such a position may deem that my views are biased, there is no bias in being a near-decades old recipient of the product of high schools – namely, the university freshman. Secondly I support a high school on Marco Island. In fact I along with Dr. Fay Biles (a thirty-year professional teacher as well) were the organizers of the original initiative approximately three years ago. Our vision then was to establish a high school on Marco Island dedicated exclusively to exemplary, university-level education in the basics: Mathematics, Sciences, English, and Social Sciences. From there another initiative surfaced, with their own ideas, and in keeping with the spirit of choice, that initiative espouses somewhat divergent ideas that I support.

Back to the arguments critical of the high school initiative.

The Lely Argument
A high school on Marco Island will take away from Lely. Lely has the sports programs. "My child went to Lely, is very happy and had a wonderful experience". "My child went to Lely and is now a successful (fill in the blank)." Lely offers real-world experiences in diversity, culture and "other things." "I sent my child to Lely, and it's a great school." "Lely has a great sports program."

First, thank God that your child did well, is happy and had a wonderful experience irrespective where that child went to high school. However, that does not mean that all children did well, are happy or had a wonderful experience at Lely. And for those that didn't have the same experience or success, didn't they deserve the same experience? For example, last year's statistics show that approximately from 25% to 35% of the students in Collier County could not read or perform arithmetic or read at their grade level. Aren't these 25% to 35% of the children entitled to a "wonderful experience" and are they not entitled to having the education so as to be successful at (fill in the blank)?

And therein lies the problem and why I denoted my position at a university – the overwhelming amount of our time is not spent with the happy successful freshman college student, but with the approximately 30% that do not have an 8^th grade education and somehow wound up in a college.

So, if an organized group of individuals finds a better way to reach those failed 30%, the result of allowing the existent school systems decades of attempts and billions of dollars expenditures, why not let them try?

Here is another statistic before moving on: Florida ranks 48^th in the nation in high school graduation rates at approximately 70% - meaning that 30% of the students don't graduate. Can we not let an initiative that seeks to address that appalling 30% failure rate an opportunity? Or should we just accept this 30% failure rate just because you/your child had a great experience at some existent school?

Then there is the argument that someone's child went to the school that they assume will be impacted by the Marco Island high school initiative. This is rather interesting: just because some parent sent their child to a particular school does that mean that the rest of us must follow suit? Why? What if we as a family or the child as an individual have/has particular learning, physical, dietary, ecumenical requirements? Or just want to exercise a right to chose?

The argument of "our child went there so yours must too" is vacuous at best. One of my sons went to one of the top five high schools in the United States. I wouldn't recommend that anyone send their child to that high school (not just because it is in California, but because it may not be engaging for every child).

Similarly, the best high schools in the world are now in Cuba – there is an exceedingly high level of education taught by premiere scholars and mandated by a brutal regime resulting in a population with a near 100% literacy rate (far better than the United States). Anyone want to send their child to Cuba to be in the best high schools in the world?

Two final points. The sports argument is attention-grabbing as it exposes a greater problem. What if the child is not sports inclined – what value does a sports program then serve that child? A child can be physically fit and not be in organized sports.

We often hear of some student that has received a sports scholarship – again be thankful and happy for that student. But here is the rub: and what about the hundreds of thousands of other students that did not receive a sports scholarship? A better question: why doesn't the local "newspapers" or the school district's propaganda machine not detail the story of a dropout that had no sports scholarship?

Lastly, good students (yes, there are such students despite the cancer of political correctness) will excel anywhere. They will make the best of any circumstance, not spend their time whining and complaining and blaming everyone and everything. Scholars succeeded from good and bad schools alike.

So as to the Lely arguments, they are not rational but merely emotional. The Marco Island high school initiatives – past and present – never decried what happened or did not happen at Lely. In fact, the school was never mentioned, nor will it ever be mentioned. These initiatives simply want a high school on the island implemented using novel and arguably better didactic strategies.

By the way, another one of my sons graduated from Lely.

Tract K
This is really, really simple. The land deed clearly states SCHOOL SITE. This is a legal document. Deltona gave the land to the Collier County School Board for the expressed purpose that the land be used for a SCHOOL SITE.

No one can construe that the land is to be used for a power generating plant or to be sold for profit. The superintendent has no legal or moral right to sell the land to anyone – which is his latest salvo in an attempt to derail the high school initiative.

Now, the City of Marco Island recently undertook exploratory conversations with the Collier County School Board to buy tract K. This movement seemed to be a benevolent idea by which to protect the property from the island's established insidious rapacious commercial interests. While I initially supported this idea, I no longer do so.

Reason being that the syndicate has reared its ugly head by suggesting again that tract K be used for a power generating facility. And while the current council leadership is honest and honorable, it may not be that way forever thereby running the risk that at some time in the future tract K will wind up in the noted wrong hands.

Regardless, it is easier for the Collier County School Board to do what it is legally obligated to do – to provide the land as deeded.

Lastly, the ruse that there is an eagle on the land prevents any development (except the syndicate's power generating facility for some not-so-odd reason) has also resurfaced. The real restriction is quite different than what is being espoused by the syndicate or the "environmental specialist". A properly designed school can be built on tract K in deference to the eagle and related laws.

Taxes
Taxes will increase. No. There will be a fee. No.

Here is a question: Are Marco Island taxpayers happy with the approximately $50million they send every year to the Collier County School Board?

Summary
During the many years I undertook my PhD studies I was fortunate to be part of a large cadre of exceedingly bright doctoral computer science and engineering students. Sadly, none were born in the United States, and only one had a high school diploma from Florida (me – a long time ago).

Our educational K-12 system needs help. And not just locally, but in a state that consistently ranks near-last and sadly in a country that also ranks near-last of the industrialized world. Despite the popular mantras, the problem is not from lack of money, or because of the "unions", or because of inept teachers.

The problem comes from a lack of options, bloated administrations, suffocating bureaucracies and an appreciable portion of parental disengagement.

With the Marco Island high school initiative the people have an opportunity to negate these causes that have wronged all too many of our most precious resource. Be grateful you or your child was or is a success elsewhere, while supporting an idea by which to improve a process that needs improving for the benefit of our community and country.

EPA = Ecocide Political Agency

2010-06-04T11:09:00.001-04:00

In what is now a weekly occurrence, two more reports/stories were released this week detailing how the EPA's refusal to act as required by law, politicizing every issue, and outright obfuscation has destroyed lives and ironically the environment.

The first story is tragic. After years of asking the EPA to do something, this American community finally had to "sue" the United States in a body associated with the Organization of American States (!) to intervene – then the agency decided to do something:

"Mossville is still suffering. There are still people that are dying," she says.

As evidence, they point to government blood tests showing residents with three times the normal levels of dioxins in their blood. Dioxins are carcinogens, often called the most toxic substance known.

Health surveys in Mossville [Louisiana] show widespread respiratory problems and other ailments. Residents also say many in the community have died young, from cancer.

After YEARS of rebuffing their requests, the EPA in January agreed to test whether Mossville qualifies as a federal Superfund site. Investigators arrived in April. Superfund designation could mean federal funding for cleanup and, possibly, relocation for residents who want to go.

Mossville won another victory in March. An international human rights commission agreed to rule on a case brought by Mossville against the United States government.

"It means they are going to have a legal judgment on their right to live in a healthy environment," says Monique Harden, co-director and attorney with Advocates for Environmental Human Rights

Advocates for Environmental Human Rights filed suit with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of the people of Mossville. It was the first time the commission, an arm of the Organization of American States, decided to rule on an environmental injustice case in the United States, according to Harden.

(Source: CNN June 2, 2010 "Toxic town's advocate sees victory ahead")

Then this story; the agency refused to allow the development of micro-organisms that could have consumed all of the oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico at this time:

… is the incomprehensible choice of William Reilly, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to co-chair the presidential commission to investigate the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

During Reilly's tenure, the EPA implemented policies that prevented the development of a high-tech method to mitigate the effects of the oil washing onto the magnificent beaches along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida.

Reilly should have known: Innovation had been stymied by his agency's hostile policies toward the most sophisticated new genetic engineering techniques. The regulations ensured that biotech researchers in several industrial sectors, including bioremediation, would continue to be intimidated and inhibited by regulatory barriers. Those policies remain in place today, and the EPA's anti-technology zealots show no signs of changing them.

Characteristically, the EPA didn't let science get in the way of policy. Its regulation focuses on any "new" organism (strangely and unscientifically defined as one which contains combinations of DNA from unrelated sources) that might, for example, literally eat up oil spills.

The EPA ignored the widely held scientific consensus that holds that modern genetic engineering technology is essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier, cruder techniques of genetic modification. In fact, the U.S. National Research Council observed in 1989 that the use of the newest genetic engineering techniques actually lowers the already minimal risk associated with field testing.

(Source: Investor's Business Daily June 2, 2010 "Perspective: Obama Slips Up On Oil Spill Panel")

All to be added to the agency's legacy in what it failed to do on Marco Island.

EPA Asbestos Fine – Poll Results

2010-06-02T11:39:00.003-04:00

After a short two weeks of polling, the Citizens of Marco Island have spoken: who in their opinion should pay the EPA fine for the asbestos contamination.

The results are:

CULPRIT	LIABILITY
Quality Enterprises	40.96%
Rony Joel	15.66%
Bill Moss	13.70%
John Arceri	5.30%
E. Glenn Tucker's Estate	4.82%
Jon Inglehart	3.32%
Rob Popoff	3.21%
Mike Minozzi	2.85%
Ed Issler	2.69%
Bill Trotter	2.56%
Roger Reinke	2.08%
Terry Disciullo	1.43%
Citizens of Marco Island	1.00%
Monte Lazarus	0.83%

Interesting.

It is clear who/what was doing the actual deed. But who was supervising QE? And why did the city councilors repeated failed to stop the deed despite being repeatedly informed? (In fact, one councilor was taken "for a walk" and was shown the asbestos). And how about the FDEP's alleged "investigator" who admitted to "letting this one get away"? Or the person in charge of the faux "investigation"? Or the syndicate operatives that denigrated, slurred, libeled and besmirched those that raised the problem?

(click the graph to zoom/enlarge).

Funny if Not Tragic

2010-05-31T17:34:00.002-04:00

Not reported in the island's "newspapers" is this story reported … in the Naples Spanish newspaper.

The article is rather comical albeit depressing, put in greater perspective by Marco Island's track record of environmental activism (a total of four people, two who don't live here anymore and the other two don't work for city hall).

Have your gardeners translate the entirety of article for you – much more appealing and entertaining when recanted with their rich sonorous melody.

But just in case you are too embarrassed to ask "those people" (the hoary racial trope quoting Celebrate Marco and the Syndicate), here are the two best parts:

(Marco River Marina by Ostego Bay Foundation President Joanne Semmer) She brought with her a trailer as an example for a response to an oil spill (leak). This is a unit that serves to contain a spill only when it does not surpass our resources [idiomatic – abilities] … the BP spill [idiomatic – overflowing] oil in the Gulf of Mexico is an example requiring a much more massive response.
We are raising funds to pre-position a response plan to the combustible stain [not making this up] in Marco Island. It's a beneficial project that can be used religiously in any situation when our waters are threatened by contamination. ... Approximately 500 feet [of spanker boom] have been ordered, she said.

Raising funds?

Other than two firemen patrolling the beaches (also noted in the article), action results in a trailer of 500' of boom that may save the marina (maybe) – so at least the tourists can go fishing … so, exactly where are they going fishing if the oil is washing onto our shores?

CLICK THE ARTICLE TO ENLARGE SO YOUR GARDENER CAN READ IT TO YOU IN Epañol.

Cistern – Five Months Later

2010-05-29T21:09:00.005-04:00

After five months of operation, the cistern is performing better than expected. And with an above-average rainfall in the "dry" season, there is water to spare.

So it was decided to open it up and look inside.

The first observation was that some roots had grown into the cistern. These hair-thin roots came into the cistern from where the drain field pipe orifice. The design called for the orifice to be closed, but the city demanded that an overflow valve be installed instead. We should have sealed the pipe leading to the overflow valve when installed. Hindsight is 20-20 – so it was done now.

As can be seen from these pictures, the water remains crystal clear thereby disproving one of the many irrational pretexts against cisterns ("has to be cleaned and decontaminated often"). Regardless, the water was tested:

pH: 8.0
CLORINE: .5ppm
Calcium: 1.5ppm

It is unclear what causes such a high pH (alkaline) though one can speculate that it is caused by the concrete or from the roots that found their way into the cistern. Now that the roots are eliminated, we'll see.

There is more water than is being used. If one had to do it over again, more Mazzei valves would be installed, say five, thereby increasing the usage from approximately 90 gallons per hour to 450 gallons per hour.

Since there is only one Mazzei valve in this cistern-system, it was decided to drain the cistern to help the lawn and to avoid (just once) the swamp created by the city-demanded overflow valve. An $80 pump was purchased that pumps 350 gallons per hour. After less than four hours, the cistern was nearly drained, and the lawn was very grateful. Based on the pump's power drain, approximately 83 cents of electricity was used.

Since the cistern is being filled more than anticipated (disproving another idiocy "in the dry season the cistern will be empty"), the pump will be used often.

In all, a proven success. Sadly not many have taken advantage of such an inexpensive method to save water (and a few dollars). Perhaps the new and positive management of the city will encourage cisterns.

Update on EPA Lawsuit

2010-05-28T12:29:00.001-04:00

As the few readers of this blog are aware, I opposed a motion by the U.S. Attorney to change the type of our Freedom of Information Act case from a Track two case to a Track One case.

The federal judge ruled in favor of the government and the case is now a Track One case.

However, in this ruling the federal judge allowed us the opportunity to issue discovery requests – which was my concern if the case track was changed. This opportunity is good news as it will hopefully allow us to make some important inquiries. We cannot issue the discovery requests for some time, per the judge's order.

The federal judge also ordered a schedule of what has to happen and when. The next step is up to the EPA – the agency has to produce an index of all of their documents by early September 2010. Please note that this index is not the documents themselves, but a list of the documents.

Lastly, I have offered to never issue a motion or other request without first checking with the U.S. Attorney handling the case, in deference to his time and workload. While it is extremely important for us to ascertain the extent of the environmental damage and causal health risks, we must also consider that the U.S. Attorney is also responsible for many serious and national issues, ergo my offer.

Don Quixote continues, sans Sancho Panza.

EPA Delays, Locals Lie, Tragedy Occurs

2010-05-26T11:46:00.001-04:00

Read this heartbreaking and appalling story of a town decimated by asbestos – and not because of the lethal particle itself, but because of delays by the agency allegedly responsible for protecting our health and because of local officials lying and obfuscating until it was too late.

Here are some of the article's highlights:

The EPA this month took its first step toward wrapping up its efforts over the next two to three years, rekindling anxieties.

"Everybody wants Libby to go away and it's not going away," said Dr. Brad Black, director of Libby's Center for Asbestos Related Diseases. His stethoscope pressed against the back of a 36-year-old patient who never worked in the mine, Black said the man's exposure likely came from playing in a friend's contaminated house as a child.

Crushing the rock to remove "nuisance" materials set billions of asbestos fibers loose in clouds of dust that drifted the six miles down to Libby, leaving a powdery trace as light as snow.

Little was done — despite state-issued orders for the mine to cut down on dust levels and to upgrade filtering equipment. Federal regulators stayed on the sidelines, and the mine remained open until 1990.

Nine years later, EPA finally joined the fray — after the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper detailed the toll of dead and dying that had become too large to ignore.

Two EPA Inspector General reports, in 2002 and 2006, faulted agency administrators for delays in the baseline scientific risk assessment that typically guides Superfund cleanups. The risk assessment remains incomplete.

Moving forward without the assessment leaves the EPA no way to know when Libby is safe, said Richard Troast, a former EPA toxicologist based in Washington, D.C. who worked on the Libby cleanup for five years. He said staff scientists had been pushing for the assessment since 2001 but their efforts were hampered by senior agency officials.

City Councilman D.C. Orr, who worked as a contractor at the mine for almost two decades, recalls joining with others at the mine to eat raw vermiculite as a way to mock the health concerns raised by activists like Benefield. [sounds like marco island's village idiot, doesn't it?]

For the entire lengthy sordid tale, CLICK HERE.

Who Should Pay EPA Fine for Asbestos Contamination?

2010-05-23T22:15:00.001-04:00

Take this 60-second on-line poll – your opinion counts! All voting goes directly to the City Council.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE POLL

Also, to see the results of the poll so far, CLICK HERE TO SEE THE RESULTS SO FAR

Pass the word – who will pay the fine is important! Do you want to pay?

Lisa Douglass Terminated

2010-05-21T22:11:00.002-04:00

[former] City of Marco Island Public Information Coordinator Lisa Douglass was terminated today.

The cleanup continues.

Perhaps BP and Obama can hire R² [Recker/Riviere] to clean up the oil spill mess too.

Movement on Tract K

2010-05-20T20:48:00.002-04:00

Please CLICK HERE for latest on the movement to procure Tract K.

Medley of Island Issues

2010-05-19T19:55:00.001-04:00

Tract K
Support for Dr. Recker's initiative to buy Tract K from the CCSB – with these expressed written conditions:

that it be used exclusively for a SCHOOL SITE or a NATURE PRESERVE
that it be forever illegal to commercialize the land in any way whatsoever (that includes building "affordable housing" – a.k.a. Section 9 housing – a.k.a. a slum)
that the syndicate be specifically barred from ever having anything to do with the land

For those still living under the false illusion that a school site cannot be built on Tract K – it has been confirmed with the State of Florida director overseeing eagle habitats that a school site (and a nice sized one at that) can be built on the site as originally intended. Just because the syndicate got the "Environmental Specialist" and their minions on the council to parrot the ruse that there was a 330 foot setback from the eagle nest, does not make it true (in fact it is an outright lie).

It is unfortunate that the high school initiative folks are moving ahead with some agreement with the YMCA. Perhaps when there is a visionary board at the charter middle school, Tract K can be used by them for improved academics or sports or both.

Speaking of Failing Academics
Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) won an election today. The first thing he said was:

… if he could, abolish the Education Department, get rid of No Child Left Behind, eliminate all federal funding to education and encourage competition.

There is hope for America yet.

"Alleged" Asbestos
Settlement over the alleged asbestos that was allegedly pulverized, allegedly crushed, allegedly illegally buried and allegedly improperly removed must be conditioned that the City NOT pay one cent.

The cost MUST be paid by Quality Enterprises, Bill Moss, Roger Reinke, Rony Joel and each city councilperson that allowed this "alleged" crime to continue. Let this cast of characters fight it out amongst themselves.

By the way, is there some reason that the local "alleged" paper and the syndicate still think that the EPA is pursuing criminal fines over something that is "alleged"?

Truly Befuddling
When it was suggested that the CRA advisory committee be comprised of 18, as opposed to 7, the confused opined that 18 would be unruly, it would be chaotic, that the rapture would occur, that the seven horsemen would ride and that fire and brimstone will hail from the heavens.

And because democracy requires that the masses be placated, even the intellectually challenged and historically ignorant, the city attorney had to make a legal determination that yes, 18 is perfectly legal.

Thank God for attorneys because without them we just can't govern.

By the way, for those that have yet to realize what country they are in, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was comprised of 55 people. And even without the two geniuses of those days (Thomas Jefferson was in France, John Adams was in England) look what a great job they did – proving that it isn't the numbers – it's the quality.

Another Suggestion for the Trotter Bridge
A suggestion was made that a diving board be installed at the zenith of the span on the new Trotter Bridge. We encourage the pursuit of this idea, perhaps by first vetting the idea through an advisory committee of 36 (pending city attorney approval of course). And those happily spending tax dollars for no rational reason (other than their ego) can also install the now legal red-light cameras as just approved by the defunct Crist.

Finally
Does anyone know whatever happened to finding out why the city's outside law firm was the entity that has paid over $100,000 to CRM and under who's authority?

Irrationality in the Courts

2010-05-17T21:46:00.001-04:00

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a minor cannot receive a life sentence except for first-degree murder.

Not too long ago in American history, stupid decisions were for the most part rare, as in Dred Scott and Wade. But now, they seem to be a yearly occurrence, as in Kelo, Guantanamo Bay and now this one today, Graham.

We seem to be stuck on stupid; congress, president, agencies (especially the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education), and now out of habit the Supreme Court.

But if there is any saving grace, read this brilliant dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas:

The integrity of our criminal justice system depends on the ability of citizens to stand between the defendant and an outraged public and dispassionately determine his guilt and the proper amount of punishment based on the evidence presented. That process necessarily admits of human error. But so does the process of judging in which we engage. As between the two, I find far more "unacceptable" that this Court, swayed by studies reflecting the general tendencies of youth, decree that the people of this country are not fit to decide for themselves when the rare case requires different treatment. That is especially so because, in the end, the Court does not even believe its pronouncements about the juvenile mind. If it did, the categorical rule it announces today would be most peculiar because it leaves intact state and federal laws that permit life-without-parole sentences for juveniles who commit homicides. See ante, at 23. The Court thus acknowledges that there is nothing inherent in the psyche of a person less than 18 that prevents him from acquiring the moral agency necessary to warrant a life without-parole sentence. Instead, the Court rejects overwhelming legislative consensus only on the question of which acts are sufficient to demonstrate that moral agency. The Court is quite willing to accept that a 17-year-old who pulls the trigger on a firearm can demonstrate sufficient depravity and irredeemability to be denied reentry into society, but insists that a 17-year-old who rapes an 8year-old and leaves her for dead does not.

Update on Oil Spill – BELOW the Surface is the Problem

2010-05-15T12:02:00.001-04:00

Chemical dispersants approved – long-term effect of dispersants unknown. Dispersants break up the oil into droplets – which go exactly where?

COAST GUARD AND EPA APPROVE USE OF DISPERSANT SUBSEA IN FURTHER EFFORT TO PREVENT OIL FROM REACHING U.S. SHORELINE (5-16-2010 11:30AM EDT)

Agencies Reserve Authority to Stop the Use of the Dispersant At Any Time

Key contact numbers

Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer information: (866) 448-5816
Submit alternative response technology, services or products: (281) 366-5511
Submit your vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity Program: (281) 366-5511
Submit a claim for damages: (800) 440-0858
Report oiled wildlife: (866) 557-1401

Deepwater Horizon Incident

Joint Information Center

Phone: (985) 902-5231

(985) 902-524

ROBERT, LA - The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced they have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. Oil spill dispersants are chemicals that attempt to break down the oil into small drops and prevent it from reaching the surface or the U.S. shoreline. Dispersants are generally less harmful than the highly toxic oil leaking from the source and they biodegrade in a much shorter time span.

The use of the dispersant at the source of the leak represents a novel approach to addressing the significant environmental threat posed by the spill. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsea use of the dispersant is effective at reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface – and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas.

"We will continue our relentless efforts to secure the source of the spill. In the meantime, we will employ every available technique we can to minimize the environmental impact on coastal habitats, communities and the marine ecosystem. This requires a responsible assessment of the risks and benefits of specific tactics," said Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen, the national incident commander for the spill.

"Based on the scientific analysis of the EPA and NOAA and review by the National Response Team, it has been determined that the use of dispersants at the subsea source is the prudent and responsible action to take along with other tactics including surface dispersant, skimming and controlled burns."

"We believe that the underwater use of dispersants could lessen the overall impact of the spill," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "Dispersants are not the silver bullet. They are used to move us towards the lesser of two difficult environmental outcomes. Until the flow of oil is stemmed, we must continue to take any responsible action that will reduce the impact of the spill, and that is what we are doing."

This course of action was decided upon with thorough evaluation and consideration of many factors as well as consultation with stakeholders. Because subsea use of dispersants is a novel approach, several tests were done to determine if the dispersant would be effective in breaking up the oil and helping to control the leaks.

While BP pursues the use of subsea dispersants, the federal government will require regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health through a rigorous monitoring program. EPA's directive to BP, including the monitoring plan the company must adhere to in order to ensure the protection of the environment and public health, is publicly available at www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants

The federal government will work with caution and strong oversight and reserves the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.

For information about the response effort, visit www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

How NOT to Enforce Laws

2010-05-14T22:03:00.003-04:00

Attorney General Holder makes a "judgment call" on a law without reading it - threatening federal legal action against the new Arizona immigration law. Watch this video from congressional testimony today (5-15-2010).

It appears that he (or his subordinates - the assistant u.s. attorney's) have not read the Freedom of Information Act law either.

Simple Solution to Oil Spill Clean-up?

2010-05-14T09:02:00.001-04:00

Amazing ...

Warning: FDEP at it AGAIN

2010-05-12T20:40:00.001-04:00

If there is still any doubt that the Florida Department of Environmental "Protection" is inept or corrupt or both beyond belief, and incapable of protecting this island from the oil slick, read a rare public statement by a lead researcher:

Richard Snyder, director of the UWF Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation voiced frustration about the difficulties he's faced while trying to get cooperation from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other agencies monitoring the environmental effects of the spill.

"They won't even tell us where they're sampling, none the less what they're sampling or testing for," Snyder said.

(CLICK HERE FOR ENTIRE ARTICLE – published today May 12, 2010)

So … the $2billion per year department that facilitated the asbestos crushing, burying and illegal removal, and gave us the millions of gallons of toxic effluent being pumped into the waterways, and gave us the clouds of near-lethal levels of hydrogen sulfide, and gave Highlands County their asbestos dump … is now going to "protect" us from the world's worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl?

Once again, just like what occurred on Marco Island, experts and concerned citizens offer to help, offer information and evidence, only to be repulsed, treated with indifference and ultimately wind up with an environmental problem that could have been easily averted or remediated.

The bureaucracy of the senseless.

Hillsdale College - Imprimis

2010-05-12T12:00:00.000-04:00

This month's issue is of Imprimis an imperative read for those desirous in forestalling the seemingly inevitable collapse of your constitutional republic.

The most salient observation - "... the constitution is a document that is the heritage and responsibility of every American citizen."

Hillsdale College - Imprimis

Freedom of Information Act Suit against the EPA - Continues

2010-05-10T17:20:00.001-04:00

This week's meeting with the US Attorney defending the EPA was cordial and cooperative as to the administrative issues relating to the case. As to obtaining the documents, the government's position is clear and unwavering – the government will fight this case for as long and as hard as it requires so that no other documents are released.

The justifications posed: there is a public health concern; that We the People have a right to know; that the documents contain no military or other security details that would jeopardize our safety; that the environment was contaminated – and more were unpersuasive.

So, onto preparing for a trial. The following was submitted subsequent to the meeting as a case status report.

1. Status of Case

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filed with this court September 8, 2009 and the Defendant was duly served on December 11, 2009. This action followstwo years of the Defendant not meeting its legal duty to respond to the Plaintiff's FOIA request within the required time.

The Plaintiff has not received all of the documents in the possession of the Defendant. Additionally, the Defendant's position (via a motion presently in front of the court)is that itis obligated to produce some abridged list enumerating the documents that they claim exist. If this is correct, then why has such list not been produced.

Hence, an action brought forth because of public health and environmental ramifications is once again up to the Defendant to comply.

2. Discovery

This case is presently a Track Two case, and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to discovery starting immediately after the initial conference. Said conference was had on May 7, 2010 and at that time the Plaintiff offered to serve discovery on the Defendant. The Defendant stated that the discovery would be contested via motions. So as not to burden the Defendant's counsel, the Plaintiff volunteered to not submit the already prepared discovery requests until the court rules on the Defendant's motion and Plaintiff's answer to change this case to a Track One case.

However, the Plaintiff is entitled to all manner of discovery.

The Defendant has refused to produce all of the documents in their possession as required by the Plaintiff's initial Freedom of Information Act request made nearly two years ago. Since the subject matter of the documents involves contaminationdeleterious to the public and the environment, the documents requested by the Plaintiff are of extreme public interest.

The Plaintiff believes that neither the public nor the court should rely solely on some summarized list enumerating the documents that the Defendant opts to note. Hence the only means by which to inform the public as to their health consequences, and that of the environment, and to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, is by the Plaintiff seeking discovery and having the Defendant comply with the law – neither of which has yet to occur.

3. Scheduling

The Plaintiff asks for expediency without compromising his right to discovery.

Opinion
It appears that the government is fighting this case just because it can – simply because the established rules and protocols are overwhelmingly in the government's favor. Which, as odd as it appears, the government is NOT us.

The only other rational explanation, assuming the government is rational, is that there is some damming information that it just does not want the public to see.

Happy Mother's Day -

2010-05-09T11:08:00.004-04:00

Enjoy mother's day as others are not allowed.
This picture is of the Damas en Blanco (Ladies in White) - a small group of mothers that march every sunday seeking the release and humane treatment of their sons presently being tortured and serving life sentences for simply disagreeing with their government.

This past sunday the ladies were assaulted and roughed-up by the state goons. And that is what happens when governments become omnipotent.

Nobody here cares as there is no uproar that this abuse is happening in some third-world hell-hole ... but careful it doesn't happen here.

Update on EPA Lawsuit

2010-05-05T21:50:00.001-04:00

Clearly, this action precipitated the relatively recent "enforcement." The meeting between the City and the EPA is pending.

But now into the 8^th 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.

Opinion
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.

Just for Reinke

2010-05-03T21:29:00.002-04:00

Federal Court Strikes Down Florida Statute That Criminalized Free Speech When Criticizing Police Officers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

May 3, 2010

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today announced a victory in its lawsuit challenging Florida's law making it illegal to publish information about law enforcement officials on public Web sites. The decision, issued late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Smoak, is being hailed by the ACLU as a victory for free speech in Florida.

The court held that while the state has a compelling interest in protecting law enforcement officers from the threat of bodily harm, the Florida statute went further and allowed the state to punish criticism of police officers.

"It cannot be a crime to publish truthful information," said Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida Legal Director, who cheered the court's decision. "With very rare exceptions, courts protect the publication of truthful information that is already available to the public."

In 2008, Tallahassee resident Rob Brayshaw was arrested after he posted the home address, telephone number and other personal information about a Tallahassee police officer on the Web site www.ratemycop.com.

In addition to the personal information that Brayshaw posted online, he also criticized the performance of the police officer. The personal information Brayshaw posted was obtained from already-public Web sites via internet searches.

In his comments on the Web site, Brayshaw characterized Officer Annette Garrett as being verbally abusive, rude and unprofessional, pointing to an investigation she had conducted regarding him for trespassing as a property manager. No charges were brought against him as a result of that investigation.

Brayshaw posted Garrett's home address, cell phone number and age, all of which were publicly available on the internet. He was arrested, charged and prosecuted twice under Florida Statute 843.17, which criminalizes the publication of a police officer's name, address and/or phone number without permission of the police department.

The Florida Statute reads:

Any person who shall maliciously, with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with the intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any law enforcement officer in the legal performance of his or her duties, publish or disseminate the residence address or telephone number of any law enforcement officer while designating the officer as such, without authorization of the agency which employs the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sued the City of Tallahassee and the Leon County State Attorney on Brayshaw's behalf, claiming that the statute violated his rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Smoak (N.D. Fla.) agreed with the ACLU's argument and declared Fla. Stat. 843.17 unconstitutional. The order prevents enforcement of the statute and orders the City of Tallahassee to pay Brayshaw twenty-five thousand dollars to cover his attorneys' fees, court costs and damages.

James K. Green, a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of Florida, who was cocounsel in the case, noted: "This Florida statute is but one in a long series of statutes that have tried to limit speech that is critical of public officials. The courts have again driven home the point that the First Amendment protects the right to criticize public officials."

Continue Building Trust in Local Government

2010-05-01T23:00:00.001-04:00

Last week we were presented with the first step at restoring a semblance of respect for democratic principles by summarily firing the city manager. With a legacy of obfuscation, conspiracy, cover-ups and a despicable antagonism towards many citizens, the inherited putrefaction of hometown democracy was jettisoned.

But we have a bigger problem.

Bigger than the asbestos dumping and conspiracy cover-up, far more lethal than pumping millions of gallons of effluent into the waterways and then lying to federal law enforcement about having a permit, and much more insidious than naming a public building after the rustic Attila the Hun, was a singular act where one of the five enumerated rights in the First Amendment to the US Constitution was summarily stripped from all of us.

Robert Glaub's right to free speech was violated by both the then Chairman Popoff and Police Chief Carr. While the former has repeatedly proven to be ignorant of the rights and protections afforded to citizens by the constitution, the latter followed an unlawful order. Ignorance effectuated illegal force, in this case via brutish intimidation as evidenced by the comment "I'd be happy to" when ordered to escort Mr. Glaub back to his seat.

So exactly what pleasure did a police chief have in escorting a disabled veteran away from being able to continue his right to speak? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …" is unclear?

Any honest soldier would have rejected the request, realizing that protecting one man's right to free speech is by far more important than protecting a job. It takes no courage to intimidate an old veteran with disabilities into sitting down. It does take courage to say "No sir, what you are asking violates our most fundamental right."

How sad it is to watch the rights of freedom being washed away by the very people who purportedly have sworn an oath to protect those rights. Worse, they don't even realize that it is them that are destroying this country faster than all of the Obamas, Bin Ladens, Ahmadinejads, Kim Jon Ils and Pelosis combined. For those of us that have lived through this circus once before, it's like watching an avoidable tragedy: Shut up one man that dared to speak and you have shut up a nation.

There is still an opportunity to correct this travesty here at the local level – where it matters most. And by doing so the building of trust in the local government can continue.

To the four city councilors that daringly and expeditiously voted in the face of the insidious syndicate to start the process to open government, you are respectfully asked to immediately respect the right to speak our opinion by simply apologizing to Robert and Karen Glaub.

Please issue a motion and vote again to undo an egregious wrong by simply, on behalf of the City of Marco Island and all its citizens, apologizing to Robert and Karen Glaub. And by doing so you address a hideous wrong, you continue rebuilding the democratic principles in this local government and restore the most precious of rights to all of us.

Look at all that Fiberglass Being Pulverized ...

2010-04-29T14:12:00.003-04:00

Recently declassified photograph ...

(click image to enlarge)

Not Just on Marco Island - Again EPA Refuses to Release Documents

2010-04-27T15:15:00.001-04:00

Secret EPA Report on Libby Clean-Up Sparks Lawsuit

Early Test of Obama/Holder Doctrine on Freedom of Information Act Openness

WASHINGTON - April 2, 2010 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is improperly withholding a long-sought report on whether the agency's clean-up of Libby, Montana is adequate to protect the residents of that beleaguered community, according to a lawsuit filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The lawsuit will test pledges by President Obama and Attorney General Holder of a new openness and presumption of disclosure in administering the Freedom of Information Act.

PEER is seeking the release of a 2006 report by EPA Office of Inspector General (IG) investigator Cory Rumple concerning the safety and completeness of EPA's removal of deadly vermiculite from the town of Libby. The report assesses the public health implications of the manner in which EPA conducted the clean-up in Libby, where an estimated 200 people have already died and hundreds more sickened by exposure to this virulent form of asbestos, as well as the culpability of responsible EPA officials.

During the past two years, PEER has repeatedly requested the document's release. In 2007, EPA contended that the report could not be disclosed because it was part of an active law enforcement investigation. In 2008, the agency dropped that rationale but asserted that even the factual portions of the report, as opposed to Agent's Rumple's conclusions, were so sensitive that a redacted report could not be released. In a July 28, 2008 letter to PEER, Associate Deputy IG Mark Bialek wrote that releasing only the "summary of information and concerns of various EPA employees and private individuals on technical/scientific issues regarding EPA's residential cleanup program in Libby" reported by Rumple would still reveal the agency's "deliberative process".

Following President Obama's January 21, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) directive that "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears", PEER again requested the Rumple report. After EPA indicated that it would take six months to make even an initial determination as to whether to release it (far longer than the 20 working day FOIA deadline), PEER filed a formal appeal. After that appeal drew no response, PEER today filed a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"The people in Libby deserve to know whether EPA kept its promises to them and performed the removal in the most protective fashion," stated PEER Staff Counsel Christine Erickson, who prepared the complaint, noting that according its website later this year "EPA will transition from emergency Removal Activity to the Remedial Process" in Libby. "There is no record of EPA conducting a risk assessment on its own clean-up plan; the Rumple report explores the consequences of that omission."

On March 19, 2009, Attorney General Holder issued a directive that the Justice Department will defend FOIA lawsuits only when "disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions". The PEER suit will provide an early test on the scope of this new pro-disclosure policy.

"EPA's rationale for keeping this report from the public will not withstand scrutiny," Erickson concluded.

See the EPA basis for withholding the Rumple report on Libby

Read the PEER complaint

Look at the status of the EPA Libby clean-up

View President Obama's Executive Memorandum on FOIA

View the Holder memo

Note recent EPA IG report on FOIA compliance that omits the IG's own FOIA record

###

Doesn’t Read Like “Fiberglass” to Us

2010-04-25T13:31:00.001-04:00

So, after denigrating everyone and anyone that suggested there was asbestos on or in the myriad sites on the island, the City Manager, City Public Works Director, City Attorneys and City Council knew about the asbestos dumping and cleanup all along.

Asbestos-Assistance_emails

Asbestos-GLON_CityCouncilApproval.pdf

Asbestos-SiteA_WorkPlan.pdf

Asbestos-SiteC_Workplan.pdf

Or perhaps all of these people transmogrified "asbestos" into "fiberglass" as the city public works director now contents in a sworn affidavit to the feds.

Can anyone find the word "fiberglass" in these documents?

But there is proof that the other environmental calamity caused health effects. It seems that after breathing the plumes of toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide that engulfed entire neighborhoods, nearly everyone in the city staff, council, and of course everyone in the Florida Department of Environmental "Protection" is suffering from Dissociative Fugue as to asbestos.

Divorce Quality Enterprises

2010-04-22T17:28:00.001-04:00

As Chairman Recker prepares for the negotiations with the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding the unlawful handling and initial improper disposing of asbestos by Quality Enterprises (QE), it would behoove the City of Marco Island that it divorce itself from any collaboration, cooperation and coordination with this outfit.

Though QE has experience in being on the wrong side of things when having to deal with the feds – CLICK HERE FOR PROOF – clearly we need to finally and forever disassociate ourselves from this organization.

While QE can argue that it was being implicitly managed by Moss-Joel and there was oversight by Tucker-Trotter-Minozzi , and that we don't have a clue as to what Councilors Popoff and DiSciullo were doing (though now they emote the Sergeant Schultz line of "I KNOW NOTHING"), we must move on alone.

Pretense Exposed

2010-04-20T16:43:00.002-04:00

By Karen Glaub

Former Council Chairman Popoff was quoted in the article about City Manager Thompson's firing as saying that he would have liked to have been there to speak if he had known it was going to be discussed. In fact he said that he would have run for council again because "it's just so unjust". Well, how interesting that this is your response after the way you ran the City Council Meeting of January 4th, this year. You advertised an agenda item for discussion of how to proceed in naming city owned facilities and then when the discussion started you allowed Councilor Gibson to make a motion to take action, to name our city hall for E. Glenn Tucker. You then began discussion of the merits of why he deserved this and completed your presentation with a vote by all councilors after a parade of Mr. Tuckers friends and associates on the island, who normally do not attend, but were mysteriously present that night.

There were many islanders who no doubt would have liked to have had notice about this action you took in order to speak about it, but you denied them that right by pushing this through at the end of the meeting. You not only falsely advertised that agenda item, you took action on it even after my husband, Robert Glaub made a hurried trip there to be able to be at least one person to speak against it. He informed you and the whole council that it was wrong for you to take this item from discussion to action without public notice and you continued anyway. He also informed you that many others would have been there to speak if you had advertised that you were going to do what you did. Thus, you had many opportunities at that time to stop your actions and do the right thing, but you did not.

You do not seem to understand that the firing of City Manager Steve Thompson was not a politically motivated move on Chairman Recker's part. Many of us have called for transparency, openness, and accountability from our city government for years. Indeed, this council has publicly stated their intent to provide that to we, the people. If, in order to accomplish that, swift action must be taken at times, then so be it. Many documents have surfaced recently which indicate that our council was taking action on issues without being fully informed and there were some ongoing issues which they said were not aware of at all. With our city's financial future at risk of paying large fines for being involved in some dubious past actions, this council had every right to insist, that they had a "right to know".

I remember the meeting in which City Manager Thompson was told that if he was in doubt about whether to inform them, he was to err on the side of disclosure. He did not do this, but chose to use his own judgment instead. This is incompatible with the intent of this council under Chairman Recker's leadership. Many of the islanders applaud his attempt to provide this for the people. The council members who supported him, erred on the side of their constituents and can be proud of stepping up. There was nothing personal about this. City leaders and staff have to be accountable for their actions and their inactions when it is called for and they choose not to act.

Editor's Note: Ex-councilor Popoff now whines that if only he was there for the city manager's firing … so exactly where was then Councilor Popoff when he knew that asbestos was being dumped and pulverized, and toxic hydrogen sulfide was being dumped into the waterways? Did he ACT then to expose the destruction of the environment and the danger to our health? Better still, the latest version of the EPA correspondence started when then Councilor Popoff was the chairman – what exactly was he doing then? Let's see what he says when he realizes that government sovereign immunity does not apply in these cases. Utterly amazing – "If I only knew" – YOU KNEW – you chose to play along at the whim of the syndicate while feigning concern.

Now is the Time

2010-04-18T21:44:00.001-04:00

Now is one of those rare times in a democracy where We the People can prevail over the stolid bureaucracy.

Now on Marco Island it has been identified, demonstrated and shared with the public the chronic abuse of trust by the current city management as inherited from the former city management. Beyond abuse of trust, there is outright deception, gross mismanagement and even conspiracy as related to the environmental crimes.

Now on Marco Island we have in Dr. Recker a councilor that is standing on principle in that these abuses cannot be tolerated. His reported initiates demand that we all support him.

Anyone that does not support the removal of those that took part directly or indirectly in corruption, mismanagement, conspiracy or environmental contamination, are just as guilty as those that commit the corruption, mismanagement, conspiracy and environmental contamination.

If there is one councilor that votes against any initiative to terminate the city manager and the city public works director – at this time with all of the proof and with the threat of federal prosecution – then now is the time to let go of the American dream.

When alliances and anxiety and interminable patience are employed to conceal the lack of resolve for fear that any action will alienate someone or some group, there is clearly no hope.

We see these kinds of sell-outs daily in Washington and decry how those politicians are out of touch with America. But if the sell-out happens in the smallest community, then what is left?

Convictions start at the community level, for that is the foundation of a republic. If the elected stand up openly and vote for something as obvious as flushing out corruption and mismanagement from the very bodies that are supposed to be "serving the public", then there exists the basis for saving the republic at the national level.

But if the local elected officials whine and wail and derive every imaginable excuse for not ridding our city of the proven abuses, then they have no conscience, and they, and not Obama or Reid or Pelosi or the unions or the "far left" are what is wrong with America. It is the local elected officials that refuse to act with moral and intellectual certitude that have corrupted the process that makes the Washington of Obama and Reid and Pelosi and unions and the "far left".

How many years have we waited for someone like Dr. Recker to even consider what was self-evident? How many years have we tolerated the Minozzi-Tucker-Popoff abuses of our civil rights by not even being allowed to mention at the podium the now proven abuses? What did it take for the EPA to act, and after how many years after the city management and the city council pulverized concrete infused with asbestos spreading clouds of fine asbestos-dust over parts of this island including two schools? What did it take for the EPA to act, and after how many years after the city management and the city council dumped millions of gallons of untreated effluent into the swales and Gulf of Mexico while lying to the public and the EPA as to what permit they had?

And now, when we can put these things behind us, we have councilors that are not going to purge the very people that committed these abuses? What exactly as these vacillators now waiting for?

America is running out of Reagans and Reckers. And that is not because they just don't exist, or because we can't find anyone that we agree with on everything, it is simply because you don't want them to exist. And don't hold your hopes up with GOOH or with Tea Parties or with 9/12'ers because it is not a group that creates or saves or turns an empire, but it is through the actions of single individuals of courage. It took but a few men to make America, and but five men to topple the richest nation on earth.

So when the next sign on the road to socialism comes from Washington, don't send out emails with caricatures of Obama or Reid or Pelosi, but of those local city councilors that allowed themselves to be compromised by coercion or by fear or by anything other than proceeding openly and expeditiously with upholding the public trusts.

For the Authorities (and for Posterity)

2010-04-18T09:49:00.004-04:00

More legal bills - we continue to unearth the extent of the deception by the syndicate.

Care must be exercised in reviewing these documents as some of the pages/charges refer to the CARES lawsuit and to unrelated matters (e.g., the water plant) – which have nothing to do with the attempted cover-up of the violations of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.

Bills – 1
Bills – 2
Bills – 3
Bills – 4
Bills – 5

Ps. Given who controls the place, does anyone believe that the Marco Island Historical Society will include this charade in their "museum"?

And the Hits Just Keep on Coming

2010-04-15T11:26:00.001-04:00

So it appears that after myriad denials by Moss, Reinke, Joel, Tucker, Minozzi, Trotter and their comrades in the syndicate, the city was using outside attorneys to address EPA "issues" and queries by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

The syndicate was so effective in keeping this cover-up … covered up, that the city clerk and the city attorney legitimately had no knowledge of these activities in a January 2010 public records request.

Oh, and exactly what were the other two-and-a half councilors doing when all of this was going on?

While the FDEP was (and is) complicit in the city's violations of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, the EPA wasn't (and isn't) – so one wonders how long did the city expect to keep these matters under wraps as soon as the feds got involved.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LEGAL BILLS (some charges are for non-violations)

Last question: and exactly why should the citizens of Marco Island have to pay for these charges?

Enjoy.

What is Going On?

2010-04-13T17:59:00.001-04:00

The City "staff" seems to be having issues in terms of meeting their obligations.

Last week we were treated to the news that the on-going investigation by the EPA was not communicated to the non-aligned councilors.

Now, the City's own auditing firm is taking the "staff" to task for not responding to repeated requests for documents and cooperation. For an auditing firm to write such a letter is striking.

CLICK HERE FOR THE AUDITING FIRM's LETTER

Amazing.

Marco Island BLOG

Liar Sues Victim

Evidence: Rony Joel Lawsuit

Water – More for Sale

Joel Suit - Biased Hayes Ruling Appealed

Response to Biased Ruling - Joel Lawsuit

Background

Legal Standards

Motions for Reconsideration

Transfer of Venue

Florida's Statutory Venue Choices for Defamation Actions

Proffer of Business Records Under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6)

Verified Facts

Argument

Conclusion

What Will be Marco Island’s Contribution?

Motion to Dismiss Joel Lawsuit Summarily Denied

Rony Joel Sham Lawsuit: Here’s Why

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ignores Environment Yet Again

Rony Joel Lawsuit Activity

More EPA Documents Requested

Neat New Nook

Marco Island Sewer Project at a Global Perspective

Basic Human Rights not Applicable on Marco Island

EPA Reinstates Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Requirements for Hydrogen Sulfide

Marco Island Dewatering - AGAIN!

EPA Creates Info Just for Marco Island

Amateur Boxing on Marco Joins Amateur Everything Else

Occupy Wall Street: Same as Occupy Marco Island City Hall

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

Status: Joel “Lawsuit”

Defamation, Slander, Libel: A Primer

How Limited Government Lost Its Limits

Any Attack on Free Speech Leads to …

Attempting to Silence Freedom of Speech

Rony Joel Lawsuit – Important Evidence

Rony Joel Lawsuit – the Answer

Rony Joel Sues this Paper’s Writer/Author

Perennial Pursuit of Justice

Final Post

Victory in EPA FOIA Suit

EPA Lawsuit Update & Conclusion

EPA Releases More Documents: Violations Evident

Asbestos Water Pipes

Call for Referendum

Marco Island Sued in Federal Court

Water Pipes Ignored

Another Environmental Problem on Marco Island

More City Personnel Changes

Asbestos Remediation Reports

EPA Turns Over (some) Documents

Gee, What a Coincidence

Time is Running Out

Iron Rhino

Aquifer - At Risk

EPA Settlement Reviewed

EPA Asbestos Settlement Agreement

Applying Reason to the High School Initiative Discussion

EPA = Ecocide Political Agency

EPA Asbestos Fine – Poll Results

Funny if Not Tragic

Cistern – Five Months Later

Update on EPA Lawsuit

EPA Delays, Locals Lie, Tragedy Occurs

Who Should Pay EPA Fine for Asbestos Contamination?

Lisa Douglass Terminated

Movement on Tract K

Medley of Island Issues

Irrationality in the Courts

Update on Oil Spill – BELOW the Surface is the Problem

How NOT to Enforce Laws

Simple Solution to Oil Spill Clean-up?

Warning: FDEP at it AGAIN

Hillsdale College - Imprimis

Freedom of Information Act Suit against the EPA - Continues

Happy Mother's Day -

Update on EPA Lawsuit

Just for Reinke

Continue Building Trust in Local Government

Look at all that Fiberglass Being Pulverized ...