+menu-


  • Category Archives Sue and Settle
  • Lankford Letter The Judgment Fund to Iran

    Sept 16, 2016 Lankford Letter The Judgment Fund to Iran

    Who knew? I’d never heard of “The Judgment Fund” until I read the Lankford Letter.

    HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT FUND OPERATE TODAY?

    BY DEFINITION, IT REQUIRES NO FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND DOES NOT EXPIRE AT THE CLOSE OF ANY FISCAL YEAR.

    THE APPROPRIATION MAKES AN “UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS” AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

    ————————————————

    From: Sen. James Lankford

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 8:49 AM

    Subject: Lankford Letter

    Tax money to the Iranian military

    snippet

    This is a bigger issue than a single payment, no matter how large. The cash money sent to Iran changes our historic foreign policy of isolating Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it sets a new precedent for sending money to foreign governments from the long-established Judgment Fund. To deal with the long-term precedent, I authored a bill to limit the future use of THE JUDGMENT FUND and make sure no future president can transfer American tax dollars to a nation that sponsors terrorism. 

    Click here to open this e-mail in its own browser window   Click here to open a plain text version of this email

    —————————————————————–

    JUL 14, 2016  RE: THE JUDGMENT FUND (click on the link)

    Senators Fischer and Lankford Introduce Bill to Expose Taxpayer Funds Transferred to Iran

    ————————————————————-

    After spending nearly five  hours, researching, reading and documenting

    A 19 PAGE DOCUMENT BY CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

    The Judgment Fund (or Fund) is a permanent appropriation enacted by Congress in 1956. The Fund is an unlimited amount of money set aside to pay judgments against the United States.

    The Judgment Fund: History, Administration, and Common Usage

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42835.pdf

    Federation of American Scientists Mar 7, 2013 – In the 113th Congress, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2013 ( …. The U.S. government has sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be …

    HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT FUND OPERATE TODAY?

    BY DEFINITION, IT REQUIRES NO FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND DOES NOT EXPIRE AT THE CLOSE OF ANY FISCAL YEAR.

    THE APPROPRIATION MAKES AN “UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS” AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

    PAY FOR JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FROM STATE AND FOREIGN TRIBUNALS SUBJECT TO CERTIFICATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

     IT IS ONLY ACCESSIBLE WHEN THE UNITED STATES HAS WAIVED ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

    —————————————————————————-

    JUL 14, 2016  RE: THE JUDGMENT FUND (click on the link)

    Senators Fischer and Lankford Introduce Bill to Expose Taxpayer Funds Transferred to Iran

    Legislation Will Allow Americans to Track Payments to Foreign Nations

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, U.S. Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) introduced legislation to track taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations and prevent harmful transactions from happening in the future. The bill, known as the

    JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY AND TERRORISM FINANCING PREVENTION ACT,

     expands upon legislation that Senator Fischer introduced last year with Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). It would require a public accounting of the taxpayer funds that are distributed out of the Judgment Fund.

    Senator Fischer released the following statement:

    “Hardworking American families have every right to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent, especially when used to fund hostile enemies of the United States. That is why I’m proud to join Senator Lankford to offer a new version of the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, which includes greater oversight of taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations. More transparency leads to greater accountability and through this bill, we can hold our government to task for their actions. We should not be in the business of providing funds to state sponsors of terrorism.”

    Senator Lankford released the following statement:

    “One year after the Iran Nuclear agreement, we still have the same concerns with Iran as before. Their secrecy is disconcerting and they continue to be spread terrorism and a radical Islamist ideology around the region. President Obama’s billion-dollar payment to Iran in January, which we now know is funding Iran’s military expansion, is an appalling example of Executive Branch governance.

    “The bill Senator Fischer and I have introduced will provide the American public with necessary details of this dangerous billion-dollar payment and ensure that no taxpayer dollars are ever again used to fund the extremist and violent ambitions of rogue nations like Iran.  Subsidizing Iran’s military is perhaps the worst use of taxpayer dollars ever by an American president.”

    —————————————————————————————-

    Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement – US Department of State

    www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/…/251338.ht…

    United States Department of State Jan 17, 2016 – The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague. This specific claim was in …

    IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLOSED $400 MILLION CASH HAGUE SETTLEMENT WITH IRAN,

    UPDATED ON SEP 7, 2016 TO $1.7 BILLION IN CASH HAGUE SETTLEMENT WITH IRAN

    US made $1.7 billion transfer to Iran in foreign cash, Treasury says …

    www.foxnews.com/…/us-made-1-7-billion-transfer-to-iran-in-foreign…

    Fox News Channel Sep 7, 2016 – A Treasury spokeswoman told the Associated Press the cash payments …. @cntstdthepain – Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.

    ———————————————————————–

    YEP…. AND, IN ADDITION TO THAT

    WE HAVE “U.S. FOREIGN AID FUNDING” FOR HUMANITARIAN AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

    “Hardworking American families have every right to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent, especially when used to fund hostile enemies of the United States.

    WHO IS GOING TO. INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO TRACK DANGEROUS BILLION-DOLLAR  TAXPAYER-FUNDED FOREIGN AID PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN NATIONS AND PREVENT HARMFUL U.S. FOREIGN AID FUNDING OF HUMANITARIAN AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE FROM ENDING UP IN THE HANDS OF STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

     That is why I’m proud to join (PRESIDENT TRUMP)  to offer a new version of the

     FOREIGN AID FUND TRANSPARENCY AND TERRORISM FINANCING PREVENTION ACT  

    which includes greater oversight of taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations. More transparency leads to greater accountability and through this bill, we can hold our government to task for their actions. We should not be in the business of providing funds to state sponsors of terrorism.”

    ——————————————————————————

    HOW DOES THE FOREIGN AID FUNDING OPERATE TODAY?

     U.S. FOREIGN (AID) RELATIONS AND AFFAIRS, SENATE AND HOUSE FUNDING FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS AS WELL AS FUNDING ARMS SALES AND TRAINING FOR NATIONAL ALLIES?.

     THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS is a standing committee of the … THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IS GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING (BUT NOT ADMINISTERING) and funding foreign aid programs as well as funding arms sales and training for national allies.

     GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING?

    ————————————————————————

    THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS is a standing committee of the …has jurisdiction over BILLS AND INVESTIGATIONS related to the foreign affairs of the United States.

     BILLS AND INVESTIGATIONS?

    —————————————————————-

     INVESTIGATION ON WHO DELIVERS?

    Delivery of Foreign Assistance

    What Executive Branch Agencies Implement Foreign Aid

    Programs?

    U.S. Agency for International Development

    U.S. Department of Defense

    U.S. Department of State

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    U.S. Department of the Treasury

    MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

    ——————————————————

    The Millennium Challenge Account

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/developingnations/millennium.html

    This is historical material, “frozen in time.” The web site is no longer updated and links to external web sites and some internal pages will not work.

    March 14, 2002 “Today, I call for a new compact for global development, defined by new ACCOUNTABILITY for both rich and poor nations alike,” STATES PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IN HIS ADDRESS AT THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MARCH 14, 2002. Accompanying the President: the lead singer of U2, Bono; Cardinal McCarrick and WORLDBANK PRESIDENT JIM WOLFENSOHN.

    —————————————————————

    INVESTIGATION ON WHO DELIVERS?

    WHO ENSURES ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MEASURABLE RESULTS?

    MCC IS AN INDEPENDENT U.S. GOVERNMENT FOREIGN AID AGENCY

    PROVIDES ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE THROUGH A COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS TO DEVELOPING NATIONS …

    ADMINISTRATION  THE MCA WILL BE ADMINISTERED BY A NEW GOVERNMENT CORPORATION DESIGNED TO SUPPORT INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES

    AND TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MEASURABLE RESULTS.

    THE CORPORATION WILL BE SUPERVISED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPOSED OF CABINET LEVEL OFFICIALS.

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE WILL BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. (JOHN KERRY)

    THE CEO OF THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WILL BE NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT (OBAMA) AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.

    The following 16 indicators (WITH SOURCES), CHOSEN because of the relative quality and objectivity of their data, country coverage, public availability, and correlation with growth and poverty reduction, WILL BE USED TO ASSESS NATIONAL PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO GOVERNING JUSTLY, INVESTING IN PEOPLE, and encouraging economic freedom.

    GOVERNING JUSTLY:

    CIVIL LIBERTIES (FREEDOM HOUSE)

    POLITICAL RIGHTS (FREEDOM HOUSE)

    VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    RULE OF LAW (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    CONTROL OF CORRUPTION (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    Investing in People:

    Public Primary Education Spending as Percent of GDP (World Bank/national sources)

    Primary Education Completion Rate (World Bank/national sources)

    Public Expenditures on Health as Percent of GDP (World Bank/national sources)

    Immunization Rates: DPT and Measles (World Bank/UN/national sources)

    ————————————————————————-

    Just asking is MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION an independent regulatory agency, as defined below?

    UNLIKE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, independent regulatory agencies are not subject to basic analytical requirements. BECAUSE OF THIS, INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES DO NOT CONDUCT RIGOROUS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OR CUMULATIVE EFFECT EVALUATION.

    And? Other agencies?

    ——————————————————-

    What Are the Different Forms in Which Assistance Is Provided?

    Cash Transfers

    Equipment and Commodities

    Economic Infrastructure

    Training

    Expertise

    Small Grants

    ———————————————————————————–

    The Judgment Fund, which is administered by the Treasury Department, is used to pay for certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. Between 2013 and 2015, the federal government paid more than $10 billion in Judgment Fund awards with scant transparency or oversight.

    This fund has continued to come under increased scrutiny, as it is allowed to allocate unlimited funds to cover government liability in lawsuits and is not subject to the annual appropriations process. The Judgement Fund Transparency Act would provide hardworking taxpayers and members of Congress the ability to see exactly how tax dollars are being spent on these litigation expenses.

    In February of 2015, The Washington Examiner published an editorial praising Senator Fischer’s bill:

    “Senators Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Deb Fischer, R-Neb., are co-sponsoring a bill that would fix this problem and bring transparency to the Judgment Fund, the treasury account that pays judgments and settlements to plaintiffs. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act is just two pages long. It simply requires the Treasury Department to make public through its website the details of every payment the fund makes… The bill deserves broad bipartisan support. For anyone who believes in government transparency, it’s a no-brainer.”

    Click here to view text of the bill.

    Permalink: http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/7/senators-fischer-and-lankford-introduce-bill-to-expose-taxpayer-funds-transferred-to-iran


  • Confront? Question? Demand?

    Confront? Question? Demand?

    Why do  I  personally bother to attend and speak out at  Rep. Derek Kilmer’s Town Hall Meetings?

    Someone’s  GOT TO DO IT … speak  out publicly, in front of the local news media on THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES.

    Someone’s  got to  confronted him with the evidence, ask the hard questions, compel him to face or consider something and  demand answers.

    As our elected rep. in WA DC Rep. Derek Kilmer is responsible to us.

    WHAT WILL  KILMER  DO IN RESPONSE TO

    THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES?

    1. The ISIS terrorist attacks, 62% of Americans are VERY CONCERNED?

    2.  How Is he going to VOTE to prevent the Olympic Peninsula Electronic WAR GAMES. from destroying our entire coastline of public land? And, the entire coastline from Alaska to Mexico?

    3.   How Is he going to VOTE on the FINANCIAL immigration  Crisis? Dec 3, 2014 – Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

    4.  How is he going to VOTE to reform the Obamacare debacle?

    5. Is he going to address the economic crisis created by SUE AND SETTLE?  (ESA)  taking of public and private land, in violation of the Administrate Procedure Act

    6. Is he going to demand JUSTICE from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    7.  Is he going to support the return of individual states Sovereignty, to the States, of the United States of America? So we can “MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS”

    8. Rep Kilmer put it in writing,  I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    —————————————————————————————-

     OK, REP. KILMER, THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT?

    WHAT REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM YOU?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to RE-FORM a more perfect Union,

    MUST RE- ESTABLISH The  Constitution of  the United States of America.

    MUST RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE,

    MUST INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

    MUST PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    MUST PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    MUST RE-SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    We do ordain and MUST INSIST ON  the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the Constitution for the United States of America.

    ————————————————————————————

    Rep. Kilmer Newsletter, below,  states,  I’ll be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you elected Rep. Kilmer will be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you. I want to stress these town halls are open to the public, and I encourage everyone to attend.

    It’s time to bring sanity back?

    Despite the overall dysfunction?

    I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Make the government more transparent and responsive?

    ————————————————————

    I, personally, SHALL continue my fight to put our federal, state and local governments  accountable and back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Even if I have to go it alone, with my boots on the ground and making public comments  at public forums.

    And, on my website behindmyback.org  in cyberspace

     


  • What Happens In WA DC?

    What Happens In WA DC – Should Not Stay in DC

    July 30, 2014. U.S Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans released a report today highlighting the collusion between environmental activists

     ——————————————————————————————-

     Someone sent me an email attachment with information.

    The message? Add this to the Clouded Waters collection, out of the same folks in DC.  Just released the other day.

     ———————————————————————————-

     United States Senate

    July 30, 2014  Committee on Environment and Public Works

    Minority Staff Report

    The Chain of Environmental Command

    How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA

    , … read more online

    REPORT: The Chain of Environmental Command

    —————————————————————–

    This is a 92 PAGE US Senate Committee report, questioning,  HOW THE  VERY RICH  FUND NON-GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO CONTROL  US GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND on  page 49, how it could be possible to Convert Charitable Donations into Political Outcomes?

    a  part of the conclusion

    page 67 Finally, this report is necessarily limited in its scope AND ONLY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE IN ITS EFFORT TO DOCUMENT THE MONEY TRAIL. Furthermore, as the Committee’s jurisdiction is limited to oversight of the EPA and energy and environmental policy, so too this report is constrained to reviewing activities intended to influence such policy. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that this system is replicated across the progressive coalition. More investigation and oversight is needed.

    ——————————————————————————-

     After I read the report?

    I called Luke Bolar — Luke_Bolar@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-6176.

    I spoke with Sarah.

    I commended the committee for doing the report.

    My questions and comments to Sarah included,

    So? A whole bunch of Billionaires have purchased? (for want of a better word)

    The NGO’S Control of the US Environmental Policy?

    The Ties that Bind: Key Relationships Between Facilitators, Donors, and Activists

    page 51 Activist Public Charities FUNNEL MONEY TO POLITICAL AFFILIATES?

     ———————————————————————————————

    My thoughts on this report are that it creates more questions than answers?

    THE CAUSE? WITHOUT THE EFFECT? (not in the report?)

    HOW DOES THIS NGO EPA CONTROL EFFECT AND AFFECT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS?

    How can this report be equated, to the cost to AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, OF THE EPA’S $300 TO $500 BILLION DOLLARS IN UNFUNDED EPA MANDATES being  trickled down to “We the People” by the Clean Water and Air Acts?

    ————————————————————————–

    THE MONEY’S ALL GONE? WHERE DID IT GO?

    page 49 Converting Charitable Donations into Political Outcomes?

    As previously discussed, foundations, public charities and activist organizations that register as 501(c)(3) organizations receive certain tax benefits under the law. In return, there are strict limitations on how the money can be spent. For example, as also previously discussed, 501(c)(3) groups are strictly forbidden from “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in a political campaign for or against a candidate for political office.”316 Accordingly, the Billionaire’s Club and activist groups organized as public charities have limited means to influence elections without jeopardizing their designated tax exempt status.

     

    FOLLOW THE MONEY?

    It is unclear what purpose the transfer of funds between these two organizations serves, other than obscuring the money trail?

    However, the Committee found that in many cases a 501(c)(3) will transfer funds to an affiliated 501(c)(4), which can engage in political activity. Under the law, these donations must only be used for activities within the permissible scope of the 501(c)(3)’s activities.317

    It is uncertain WHETHER THE IRS STRICTLY OVERSEES to ensure this requirement is met.

    this is especially true GIVEN THE ENORMOUS AND DIFFICULT TASK OF TRACKING AND ACCOUNTING FOR THE VAST SUMS OF MONEY THAT PASS THROUGH SEVERAL DIFFERENT GROUPS.

     FOLLOW THE MONEY?

     page 51 Activist Public Charities FUNNEL MONEY TO POLITICAL AFFILIATES?

    PAGE 53 In addition to LCV, the National Resources Defense Council,343 the Environmental Defense Fund,344 the Sierra Club345 and 350.org346 also set up affiliate nonprofit organizations to operate in this manner. The large amounts of money, multiple transfers, and questionable regulation strongly suggest that 501(c)(3) environmental groups and foundations are exceeding the scope of their tax exempt limits by financially supporting politically active 501(c)(4)s.

    Although the IRS Form 990s provide space to describe the purpose of a group’s grant, the descriptions given are often vague and overly broad. The circumstances surrounding the flow of money from 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups, and the likelihood of lax oversight, raises questions as to whether 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundations and charities are indirectly funding political activities

    page 60 e. The Billionaire’s Club Collaborating with Shady Foreign Funders?

    The Committee has also uncovered evidence that the Billionaire’s Club knowingly collaborates with shady offshore funders to maximize support for the far-left environmental activists they sponsor.

     

     

    The Obama EPA Helps to Fund the Far-Left Environmental Groups?

    page 29 In addition to providing insider access to important policy decisions, it appears activists now at EPA ALSO FUNNEL GOVERNMENT MONEY THROUGH GRANTS TO THEIR FORMER EMPLOYERS AND COLLEAGUES.

    The Committee’s research demonstrates that oftentimes EPA contributes to the bottom line of green groups through grants. Accordingly, A GRANT FROM EPA OR ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS PARTICULARLY VALUABLE TO A 501(C)(3) AS NONPROFITS ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ONE-THIRD OF ITS FUNDING from the public to maintain its tax-exempt status. A grant from EPA contributes to that goal, without limitation.184

    OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS EPA HAS AWARDED NEARLY $3 BILLION IN GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.185

    Based on a Committee review of the EPA grants database, the Obama EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer funded grants to major environmental groups. Notably, NRDC and EDF – two key activists groups with significant ties to senior EPA officials – have collected more than $1 million in funding each.

    ————————————————————————————–

    page 25 Indeed, the NRDC staff absorbed by the Obama Administration and Capitol Hill Democrats in 2009 WAS REFERRED TO AS THE “NRDC MAFIA” because they occupied so many key positions throughout the democratically controlled government.148 While at EPA, these officials were able to advance their activist agenda, this time with full support of the government.

    page 26 Watchdog groups also uncovered Enck using her personal email to communicate with environmentalists in violation of EPA policy

    PAGE 32 This highly questionable behavior demonstrates how an EPA official with inappropriate ties to far-left groups and their foundations can use her position to benefit the environmental movement AT THE EXPENSE OF TAXPAYERS

    One case involved a Presidential appointee violating their ethics pledge on 13 occasions by communicating and/or meeting with two prohibited organizations regarding their EPA work.201 Another case involved a political appointee who on two occasions violated the rules of ethics for federal employees by accepting a gift of travel and a flight in a private jet from a registered lobbyist.202

    page 33 while benefiting from nonprofit status, essentially sell a product to wealthy foundations who are seeking to drive policy and political outcomes.

    page 27 Ironically, at the time he was appointed to the EPA, he was actually suing EPA, along with other environmental activists on the basis of environmental justice concerns.165

    page 30 Yet, ALA has been a main litigant against EPA, frequently suing the Agency only to reach a cozy settlement agreement while taxpayers foot the bill for ALA’s legal fees

    Mainstream environmental groups are not the only ones to benefit from EPA grants. The Obama EPA gives grants to regional and less-well-known extreme groups

    —————————————————————————————————

    My questions and comments to Sarah included,

    Why? The Sovereign Tribes ARE NOT INCLUDED as part of the Billionaires EPA Environmental Control Club?

    page 23 where “our” is the EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs and “there” refers to the White House. In another outrageous email exchange, former Assistant Administrator for the Office of International and Tribal Affairs, Michelle DePass, and “Richard Windsor,” former Administrator Jackson’s alias, strategize over

    page 25 These email exchanges confirm the close relationships between the foundations, environmental activist groups and the Obama Administration

    —————————————————————————————-

     

     

    United States Senate

    Committee on Environment and Public Works

    Minority Staff Report

    The Chain of Environmental Command

    How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA

     

     

     Contact: Luke Bolar — Luke_Bolar@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-6176Cheyenne Steel — Cheyenne_Steel@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-6176U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Minority)

     

    (I have included some of the most recognizable NGO names)

     

    Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

    Type: 501(c)(3)453

    Total Assets: $12,282,335454

     

    Greenpeace Fund

    Type: 501(c)(3)467

    Total Assets: $15,313,140468

    Greenpeace Inc.

    Type: 501(c)(4)472

    Total Assets: $5,121,059473

     

    Sierra Club Foundation

    Type: 501(c)(3)508

    Total Assets: $98,974,748

     

    National Wildlife Federation (NWF)

    Type: 501(c)(3)495

    Total Assets: $66,456,891496

    National Wildlife Federation (NWF) Action Fund

    Type: 501(c)(4)501

    Total Assets: $604,386502

     

    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund

    Type: 501 (c)(4)504

    Total Assets: $2,955,590505

     

    July 30, 2014

    Contact: Luke

    Contents

    INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………….1

    I. Legal Framework of Far-Left Environmental Movement …………………….3

    a. 501(c)(3) Private Foundations and Public Charities…………………………..3

    b. The 501(c)(4) ……………………………………………………………………………………8

    II. The Billionaire’s Club: Leveraging their Investment………………………….11

    a. The Ties that Bind: Key Relationships Between Facilitators, Donors, and Activists ………………………………………………………………………………………..11

    b. The Facilitators: Key Environmental Activists………………………………..18

    c. The Face of the Environmental Movement: Public Charity Activists.21

    III. The Bureaucrats: How the Obama EPA is Deeply Intertwined with the Billionaire’s Club and their Far-left Environmental Activists…………………..23

    a. EPA’s Green Revolving Door………………………………………………………….23

    b. The Obama EPA Helps to Fund the Far-Left Environmental Groups 29

    c. Questionable Behavior by Regional Administrator Judith Enck………31

    IV. Billionaire’s Club in Action: Case Studies of Services Rendered………33

    a. Activists Groups Provide Billionaire’s Club with Propaganda…………33

    b. Activist Groups Provide Billionaire’s Club with Artificial Grassroots Movements…………………………………………………………………………………………..38

    c. Converting Charitable Donations into Political Outcomes……………….49

    d. Fiscal Sponsorships Provide the Billionaire’s Club with Access to Nimble and Transient Groups and also Provide Distance from their Hired Hands ………………………………………………………………………………………………….54

    e. The Billionaire’s Club Collaborating with Shady Foreign Funders….60

    CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………….67

    APPENDIX A: TOP FOUNDATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GIVING 68

    APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS………………………………………….73


  • Rubber Stamping EPA Sue and Settle

    Rubber Stamping EPA Sue and Settle

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Assault on State Sovereignty, focuses specifically on the EPA’s usurpation of state authority on environmental protection

    STATE SOVEREIGNTY BE DAMNED (IN ALL 50 STATES)

    I wonder how “We the People” ever MANAGED before our WA State elected representatives

    WERE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, TO RUBBER STAMP EPA FEDERAL SUE AND SETTLE AGREEMENTS?

    IT’S A DIRTY FEDERAL JOB, BUT SOMEBODY’S AT THE STATE LEVEL  HAS TO “WAC” IT!

    So? OUR WA State elected representatives DELEGATED OUR  CITIZEN’S POWERS  to the APPOINTED WA State (DOE) Ecology under Title 173 WAC’s.

    Of course, we MUST forgive our Elected WA State  Representatives,

    Because? Indeed, whether they admit it or not,

    THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF IT, THEY ARE JUST RUBBER STAMPING THE (EPA’S) FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (AS A DIRECT RESULT OF A NUMBER OF LAWSUITS WITH ENVIRONMENTALISTS FILED) UNDER THE CLEAN WATER AND AIR ACT.

    When did any State or Federal elected representative ever admit to, or say “I’m damn sorry about having to RUBBER STAMP this  federal EPA unfunded Sue and Settle mandate.”

    NOT ONCE…

    However, The mayor of Port Angeles WA Cheri Kidd, selected from among the city council members and served two years in the mostly-ceremonial post, did in fact object to Rep. Derek Kilmer about the EPA unfunded mandates that were bankrupting her  city and the citizens of Port Angeles WA.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    DID OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, IN WA DC LAY DOWN THE LAW?

    NOPE!

    Importantly, these new rules ARE NOT THE OUTCOME OF LEGISLATION
    or rigorous scientific findings,

    BUT A DIRECT RESULT OF A NUMBER OF LAWSUITS WITH ENVIRONMENTALISTS
    The agreements to regulate often DID NOT INCLUDE any meaningful opportunity for input from state and local entities

    (above excerpts from) US SENATE REPORT “CLOUDED WATERS”

    ——————————————————————————–

    MUST WE THE PEOPLE forgive our ELECTED FEDERAL Representatives?

    INDEED, WE MUST NOT FORGIVE OUR ELECTED FEDERAL Representatives

    aka THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

    FOR IGNORING AND FAILING TO ACT ON THE DEPARTURE OF JUSTICE, BY THE DEPT OF JUSTICE.

    BEHIND OUR BACKS, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

    THE DEPARTURE OF JUSTICE

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/12/the-departure-from-justice/

    Oct 12, 2013 – IN ALL OF THE SUE AND SETTLE CASES the Chamber found, the Department of Justice represented the agency. Virtually all lawsuits against …

    ——————————————————————————————————

     

     

     


  • The Dam Shame Of Flooding

    Derek,

    I posted this on my website last year.
    Flooding is a Dam Shame
    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    ——————————————————————————–

    Why has Congress spent ALL of it’s time FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS? TAKING AND USING taxpayer dollars? to legislate and fund the NGO’s “Sue and Settle” global agenda on the environment?, “WILDING?” the United States of America, to protect scenic rivers and views?, and to SAVE AND PROTECT endangered species,TAKING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NATURAL RESOURCE LAND TO PROVIDE Critical Habitat for endangered species,created manipulated balding, breeding, seeding and trans location of endangered plants and animals?

    IN A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE? FOR THE PEOPLE? BY THE PEOPLE?

    WHO IS PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

    Why has congress FAILED TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN “PEOPLE” FROM the LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE AND PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AKA “HABITAT FOR HUMANITY” FROM THE DAMN MISERY OF PROVEN, CONTROLLABLE DAM FLOODING?

    The increase on FEMA flood insurance is a DAM shame on Congress.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    —————————————————————–

    Flooding is a Dam Shame
    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    FLOODING IS A DAM SHAME

    DROUGHT IS A DAM SHAME

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD.

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    IN THE USA THE GOVERNMENT WAS AND IS SO DAM STUPID THEY DECIDED THAT HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER WAS NOT DAM CLEAN, DAM CHEAP, DAM RENEWABLE DAM ENERGY, NOT DAM FLOOD CONTROL AND NOT DAM DROUGHT AND DAM PROPERTY LOSS PREVENTION.

    THE DAM CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM SMART THEY WORK IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DAM PEOPLE.

    THE CHINESE DAM PREVENTS THE DAM LOSS OF LIFE, BILLIONS OF DAM DOLLARS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE, PROVIDES DAM CHEAP, DAM CLEAN, DAM RENEWABLE, DAM ENERGY AND HELPS KEEP THEIR DAM ECONOMY STRONG.

    THE CHINESE DAM CONTROLS THE DAM WATER RELEASES THE DAM WATER TO ELIMINATE THE DAM DROUGHTS

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DOES THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    THE BEST DAM INTEREST OF THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE USA BE DAMMED

    AS DICTATED BY THE DAM US GOVERNMENT

    THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE DAM USA ARE FLOODED AND CLEANING UP THE DAM WATER DAMAGE FOR SIX DAM MONTHS OF THE YEAR.

    THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE USA SUFFER THE DAM DROUGHT FOR THE OTHER SIX DAM MONTHS OF THE YEAR

    THE CHINESE DAM CONCEPT IS TO BUILD AND KEEP DAMS TO PROVIDE CLEAN RENEWABLE ELECTRIC POWER, CONTROL THE DAM WATER AND PREVENT THE DAM FLOODING AND RELEASE THE DAM WATER TO PREVENT DROUGHT

    THE USA DAM POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.
    This entry was posted in Economic Impact, FEDERAL ISSUES AND REFORM, The We’s who WANT,


  • Part 8 (WOW) USFS Legislation

    This List of legislation governing THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, compels me to ask questions.

    Is the United States Forest Service under control?  OR IS IT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL WITH OVERLAPPING  CONGRESSIONAL ECONOMIC ACTS OF OPPRESSION?

    RESULTING IN AN EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT ?

    (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008). The legislation provides financial assistance to rural counties AFFECTED BY THE DECLINE IN REVENUE FROM THE TIMBER HARVESTS IN FEDERAL FOREST LANDS

    DECLINING TIMBER HARVESTS REVENUE INDEED,

    TIMBER HARVESTING NOW OCCURS ANNUALLY ON LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS SUITABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION IN EXISTING NATIONAL FOREST PLANS.

    ———————————————————————————

    Today is Feb. 19, 2014 This page was last modified on 8 May 2012

    A number of federal statutes govern the United States Forest Service.

    FOREST SERVICE ORGANIC ADMINISTRATIVE ACT (Act of June 4, 1897) (16 U.S.C. §§ 473-478, 479-482 and 551, June 4, 1897, as amended 1905, 1911, 1925, 1962, 1964, 1968, and 1976). This act is the original organic act governing the administration of national forest lands. The act specified the purposes for which forest reserves might be established and provided for their protection and management. Today, this act is one of several Federal laws under which the Forest Service operates. While the Organic Administration Act remains significant, it must be read in conjunction with the later acts, which expand the purpose and uses of the national forests.

    MULTIPLE USE – SUSTAINED YIELD ACT  OF 1960 (Act of June 12, 1960) (P.L. 86-517; 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-531). This act declares that the purposes of the national forests include outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife. The act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to administer national forest renewable surface resources for multiple use and sustained yield. The act does not affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States, the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands, or the use or administration of Federal lands not within the national forests.

     NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 (Act of October 22, 1976) (P.L. 94-588; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614, August 17, 1974, as amended 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988 and 1990). This act reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests.

    COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978 (Act of July 1, 1978) (P.L. 95-313; 16 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2111, July 1, 1978, as amended 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996 and 2008). This act, as amended, authorizes the State and private forestry activities of the Forest Service—including fire, forest management, forest health, wood utilization, urban and community forestry, forest land easements, and organizational management assistance—to State forestry agencies.

     FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 1978(Act of June 30, 1978) (P.L. 95-307, as amended by P.L. 100-521, Forest Ecosystems and Atmospheric Pollution Research Act of 1988, Section 3 (c), and as amended by P.L. 101-624, Food Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Farm Bill), Title XII, Subtitle B; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1641-1648). The act provides an updated and expanded authority for research by the Forest Service, including allowing competitive grants, performing research studies, recycling wood fiber, conducting tests, and establishing a forestry student grant program for minority and female students.

     FOOD, CONSERVATION AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008(Farm Bill) (P.L. 110-234) The Farm Bill is passed every several years and deals with both agriculture and all other affairs under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The most recent act, P.L. 110-234, contains new authorities for the Forest Service:

    Title VIII: Forestry

    Subtitle A: AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978. Establishes national priorities for private forest conservation, a community forest and open space conservation program, and a Secretary level Forest Resources Coordinating Committee.

    Subtitle B: Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority. Authorizes the reburial of Indian tribal human remains and cultural items found on national forest lands and TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS FOR CULTURAL PURPOSES.

    Subtitle C. AMENDMENTS TO OTHER FORESTRY RELATED LAWS. AMENDS THE LACEY ACT to include the illegal taking of plants, establishes an Emergency Forest Restoration Program, and renews authority and funding for the Healthy Forest Reserve Program.

    Title IX: Energy Establishes FOREST BIOMASS FOR ENERGY AND COMMUNITY WOOD ENERGY grant programs.

     FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1978 (Act of November 5, 1990) (P.L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2070; 16 §§ U.S.C. 4501 note, 4501, 4502, 4503, 4503a to 4503d, 4504, 4505, 1641, 1643, 2101, 2109). Title VI of this act provides authority for international forestry activities of the Forest Service.

    NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF (ACT OF JANUARY 1, 1970) (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347). This act requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet this requirement, Federal agencies must analyze the environmental effects of proposed actions, such as through an environmental impact statement or other method, as specified in applicable rules. The act also established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality.

    ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ACT OF DECEMBER 28, 1973) (16 USC 1531-36, 1538-40). This act governs the process of identifying threatened and endangered species, provides protections for such species, and governs Federal actions that could affect such species or their habitat.

    The following are additional laws with significant influence on the mission of the Forest Service:

     FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWAL RESOURCE PLANNING ACT  OF 1974 (ACT OF AUGUST 17, 1974) (P.L. 93-348, 88 Stat. 476, AS AMENDED; 16 U.S.C §§ 1600(note), 1600-1614). This act requires preparation of a strategic plan for all Forest Service activities every 5 years based on an assessment of renewable natural resources on all land ownerships every 10 years.

     CLEAN WATER ACT (FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT) (ACT OF JUNE 30, 1948) (P.L. 80-845; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, October 18, 1972, as amended 1973-1983, 1987, 1988, 1990-1992, 1994, 1995, and 1996). This act is a comprehensive statute aimed at restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

    CLEAN AIR ACT (ACT OF JULY 14, 1955) (P.L. 84-159; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7602). This act was the first Federal legislation involving air pollution. This act provided funds for Federal research in air pollution. Major amendments were made to this act by P.L. 88-206 and P.L. 95-95 to help control air pollution and increase the authority and responsibility of the Federal Government to help provide clean air.

    WILDERNESS ACT (ACT OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1964) (P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890 as amended; 16 U.S.C §§ 1131 (note), 1131-1136). This act established the National Wilderness Preservation System and designated the initial components of that system. These lands are to be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people and for the preservation of their wilderness character.

    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965 (Act of September 3, 1964) (P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§ 460l-4 through 6a, 460l-7 through 460l-10, 460l-10a-d, 460l-11). This act provides money to Federal, State, and local governments to purchase land, water, and wetlands. Land is bought from landowners at fair-market value, unless donated.

     WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT (ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1968) (P.L. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906, as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271(note), 1271-1287). This act established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to include rivers possessing “outstandingly remarkable” values to be preserved in free-flowing condition. The act designated the initial components of this system and prescribed how future additions to the system would be evaluated.

    FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT (ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1972) (P.L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. §§ Appendix 2). The act governs the behavior of approximately 1,000 Federal advisory committees. In particular, the act restricts the formation of such committees to only those that are deemed essential and limits their powers to provision of advice to officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The act requires that administrative procedures and hearings be public knowledge.

     FEDERAL LAND AND POLICY MANAGEMENT ACT (ACT OF OCTOBER 21, 1976) (43 USC 1701-2, 1711-23, 1732-37, 1740-42, 1744, 1746-48, 1751-53, 1761-71, 1781-82). This statute provides the basic policies for Federal land management and governs actions such as acquisitions, sales, exchanges, withdrawals, and rights of way.

    FOREST RESERVE ACT OF 1891 (ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891) (Section 24 of the General Land Law Revision Act of 1891, also known as the Creative Act; 26 Stat. 1103; 16 U.S.C. §§ 471, REPEALED 1976 BY P.L. 94-579, FLPMA). This act gave the President authority to establish forest reserves from public domain lands. The forest reserves, then comprising 63 million acres (250,000 km2), formed the foundation of the National Forest System. In February 1905, CONGRESS TRANSFERRED THE FOREST RESERVES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. IN JULY 1905, THE BUREAU OF FORESTRY WAS RENAMED THE FOREST SERVICE.

    TRANSFER ACT OF 1905 (ACT OF FEBRUARY 1, 1905) (P.L. 58-33, Ch. 288, 33 Stat. 628; 16 §§ U.S.C. 472, 554). This act transferred administration of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture.

    WEEKS LAW (ACT OF MARCH 1, 1911) (P.L. 61-435, CH. 186, 36 Stat. 961, as amended; 16 U.S.C. §§ 480, 500, 515, 516, 517, 517a, 518, 519, 521, 552, 563). This act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to examine, locate, and purchase forested, cutover, or denuded lands within the watersheds of navigable streams necessary to regulate the flow of navigable streams or for timber production.

    SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 20000Section 601, Division C, of P.L. 110-343 (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008). The legislation provides financial assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from timber harvests in Federal lands. Funds are used for schools and roads, as well as to create employment opportunities, to maintain current infrastructure, and to improve the health of watersheds and ecosystems. More than $2.1 billion will be distributed to eligible States and counties over a 4-year period (FY 2008-2011).

     

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This page was last modified on 8 May 2012 at 07:18.

     


  • The Pockets of Sue and Settle

    The Pocket Gopher, for one. The Pockets that that have been picked using Sue and Settle? The NGO’S that are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act, including paying the legal expenses to the environmental groups.
    —————————————–
    TARGETING The DEEP POCKETS of the EPA and USFWS?

    DEEP POCKETS – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_pocket‎
    In the context of a lawsuit, the DEEP POCKETS is often the target defendant, even when the true (moral) culpability is with another party because the DEEP POCKETS has … MONEY to pay a verdict.
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    The EMPTY POCKETS of “We The People” the collective financial destitution and despair caused by EPA and USFWS Sue and Settle agreements
    —————————————————————-
    The pockets of government deception?

    12 States Sue EPA over Clean Air Records – Governing
    www.governing.com/…/12-States-Sue-EPA-over-Clean-Air-Records.htm…‎
    Twelve states are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not complying with their public-records requests for information on the implementation of …
    ———————————————————————————————
    The NGO’s that Sued, settled and pocketed $$$ agreements of the Clean Water Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

    The NGO’s that Sued, settled and pocketed $$$ agreements of the Clean Air Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

    The NGO’s that Sued, settled pocketed $$$ agreements of the Endangered Species Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?
    ———————————————————————————————-

    The pockets of Public and Private “NO MAN’S LAND” created by Sue and Settle?

    Pockets of the collective financial destitution and despair caused by EPA and USFWS Sue and Settle agreements, ruling unfunded mandates?

    Remember the of financial destitution and despair caused in the timber industry by the Pockets of endangered Spotted Owls?

    OK, now multiply the pockets of Financial destitution and Despair, that SHALL be caused by using Sue and Settle agreements, with over 2000 pockets of endangered species, now listed in the United States Of America.

    The pockets of NGO Sue and Settle agreements, collective Impact on “We the People” and America?
    PRICELESS? by definition, impossible to put a value on, worth more that can be calculated in terms of money.

    Indeed, the collective impact of Financial Destitution and Despair to “We the People” caused by the pockets of Sue and Settle agreements, is impossible to put a value on and cannot be calculated simply in terms of money.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    Google behindmyback.org Sue and Settle for documentation and comments
    also Google behindmyback.org endangered butterfly for more….
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Sue-And-Settle Nets Environmentalist Groups Billions | Tom …
    tomremington.com/2013/05/23/sue-and-settle-nets-environmentalist-gro…‎

    /2013/05/23/sue-and-settle-nets-environmentalist-groups-billions/
    Now we have “Sue-and-Settle”. According to Jillian Kay Melchior at National Review Online, environmentalist groups are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only to have the EPA “settle” the case, therefore bypassing Congressional scrutiny and of course keeping actions out of sight of the public, while blaming the courts.
    When environmental groups petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list so many species under protection of the Endangered Species Act, that it is impossible for the USFWS to address all of these requests. Under the rules of EAJA, if the USFWS does not address each request in a timely manner, government coughs up all the legal expenses to the environmental groups. It’s a giant cash cow.

    Bottom line
    WHY WOULD ANY REASONABLE PERSON SAY THAT “SUE AND SETTLE SUCKS”?


  • “Sue and Settle Sucks”

    Estimates are $300-$500 Billion dollars in unfunded mandated COST to “We the People” for EPA SECRET “SUE-AND-SETTLE” deals, $300-$500 Billion dollars for JUST THE NEW RULES for The Clean Water Act and The Clean Air Act.

    Importantly, these new rules are not the outcome of legislation or rigorous scientific findings, but a DIRECT RESULT of a number of lawsuits with environmentalists

    In the past 3 years, the Administration has concluded approximately 60 settlements with special interest – 29 of these agreements bound EPA to make major policy changes. THE PLAINTIFFS IN THESE CASES ARE OFTEN THE VERY SAME REOCCURRING PLAYERS – THE SIERRA CLUB, NRDC, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WILD EARTH GUARDIANS, AND CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
    ———————————————————————–
    Sen. Vitter on Sue and Settle
    Posted on December 9, 2013 7:14 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, use SECRET “SUE-AND-SETTLE” deals to advance their radical environmental agenda WITHOUT ANY INPUT from those who will be affected, including states, local governments, and private citizens.
    ————————————————————–
    VITTER: Endangered Species Act’s hidden costs – Washington Times
    www.washingtontimes.com/news/…/ENDANGERED-SPECIES-ACTS-HIDDEN-COST…‎
    ——————————————————————————–
    $300-$500 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN AIR ACT AND MORE HIDDEN-COST…‎ FOR 757 NEW ENDANGERED SPECIES?
    —————————————————
    Behind My Back | How Big is Sue and Settle?
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/11/09/how-big-is-sue-and-settle/‎
    Nov 9, 2013 – HELLO CONGRESS ANYBODY HOME? September 9, 2011 – A FEDERAL JUDGE APPROVED THE LANDMARK 757 SPECIES LEGAL AGREEMENT …
    ————————————————————————————————-
    The Sue and Settle documents of TRUTH have been denied to 12 states by the EPA, they are NOT on the table.
    Twelve states are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not complying with their PUBLIC-RECORDS requests for information on the implementation of …

    ———————————————————————————————————-
    My comment

    The Sue and Settle handwriting is a matter of record, , Global, Non-government, special interest groups have usurped the US Congress, the sovereignty of our states, the constitutional rights of the American People AND, TAKEN OVER THE RULE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN

    What is an American Grandmother so worried about?

    America in Crisis

    The credibility of the collective US Government

    The National Debt $17.2 Trillion Dollars

    The Obamacare debacle

    The Middle East 10 year war crisis

    The unresolved WA DC political scandals

    What ELSE really bothers me?

    Goggle behindmyback.org for the full text of “Sue and Settle Sucks”,
    more comments, media reports and Documentation.

    260 results (0.17 seconds)

    Behind My Back | Tenacity And Bother?
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/21/1217/‎

    Sep 21, 2013 – WHY DO I BOTHER?

    Bottom line BECAUSE I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN and I have a right to freedom of SPEECH MY TENACITY and …
    ——————————————————————————————————
    The EPA’s War Against the States: States are supposed to lead in …
    capitalresearch.org/…/the-epas-war-against-the-states-states-are-supposed…‎

    In the preamble of THE CLEAN AIR ACT (1963), Congress declared that “air pollution prevention . . . at its source is the primary responsibility of STATES and local governments.” According to the opening of THE CLEAN WATER ACT (1972), “It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and RIGHTS OF STATES TO PREVENT, REDUCE, AND ELIMINATE POLLUTION.”

    Oct 7, 2013 – EPA TAKEOVERS OF STATE PROGRAMS ARE UP AN ASTONISHING 2750%. … Sue-and-settle is made possible primarily by the fact that the EPA has more … and “green” groups reached 48 sue and settle agreements, a 380% increase.

    Behind My Back | Sue and Settle up 380%
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/sue-and-settle-up-380/‎
    Oct 16, 2013 – The EPA HAD 48 SUE AND SETTLE AGREEMENTS during President Obama’s first term, representing A 380 PERCENT INCREASE from the …
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Under EPA secret “SUE-AND-SETTLE” deals

    The EPA unfunded mandated COST for the Clean Water Act and The Clean Air Act have been estimated to be $300-$500 Billion dollars a year dumped on the backs of “We the People” strangling economic growth and holding us back from prosperity.
    States are projecting BILLIONS IN COSTS under the threat of an EPA takeover of STATE WATER PROGRAMS.

    AND, the current BILLIONS IN EPA unfunded mandated COSTS for the EPA takeover of state water programs

    Does not reflect costs associated with controlling combined sewer and sanitary overflows or the implementation of the “Health Air Act”
    —————————————————————————————————–
    WHY IS THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORTING ON
    SECRET “SUE-AND-SETTLE” deals ?
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local
    chambers and industry associations

    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce
    www.uschamber.com/sites/default/…/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.p…‎
    additional methodology and the development of a database of sue and settle cases. … The U.S. Chamber of Commerce undertook an investigation of the sue.
    —————————————————————————————————
    Is the DOJ ignoring Obama’s Executive order 13563?
    “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” provision
    provision (a) Regulations SHALL be adopted through a process that involves PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    What does the EPA have to hide?
    12 States Sue EPA over Clean Air Records – Governing
    www.governing.com/…/12-States-Sue-EPA-over-Clean-Air-Records.htm…‎
    Twelve states are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not complying with their PUBLIC-RECORDS requests for information on the implementation of …
    —————————————————————————————————
    THE BEST NEWS (full text on behindmyback.org)
    Sen. Vitter on Sue and Settle
    Posted on December 9, 2013 7:14 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been scrutinizing the Obama Administration’s problems with transparency, specifically focusing on SECRET “SUE-AND-SETTLE” deals.

    The “sue and settle” maneuver that federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, use to advance their radical environmental agenda
    That Administration officials will make with far-left environmental groups to enact unnecessary and burdensome regulations WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM THOSE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED, INCLUDING STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PRIVATE CITIZENS.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?
    UNITED STATES SENATE REPORT Clouded Waters – U.S. Senate …
    www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View…‎
    Jun 30, 2011 – UNITED STATES SENATE REPORT. Clouded Waters: A Senate Report Exposing the High Cost of EPA’s Water Regulations and Their Impacts …
    Importantly, these new rules are not the outcome of legislation or rigorous scientific findings, but a DIRECT RESULT of a number of lawsuits with environmentalists

    These charges aren’t exactly new. Industry groups and EPA critics have given A NAME TO THIS SPECIAL BRAND OF RULEMAKING. IT’S CALLED “SUE AND SETTLE.”

    ——————————————————————————
    Is the DOJ ignoring Obama’s Executive order 13563?
    Executive order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”
    (a) Regulations SHALL be adopted through a process that involves PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?
    UNITED STATES SENATE REPORT Clouded Waters – U.S. Senate …
    www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View…‎
    Jun 30, 2011 – UNITED STATES SENATE REPORT. Clouded Waters: A Senate Report Exposing the High Cost of EPA’s Water Regulations and Their Impacts …
    Us Senate report Clouded Waters
    Importantly, these new rules are not the outcome of legislation or rigorous scientific findings, but a DIRECT RESULT of a number of lawsuits with environmentalists
    The agreements to regulate often DID NOT INCLUDE any meaningful opportunity
    for input from state and local entities
    ————————————————————————————–
    States are projecting BILLIONS IN COSTS under the threat of an EPA takeover of
    state water programs
    —————————————————————————————————-
    MORE NEWS? UPDATE NEEDED?
    Judge: EPA Exceeded Authority Trying To Regulate Stormwater Runoff As Pollutant
    A federal judge has ruled that the Environmental Protection agency exceeded its authority by The judge agreed with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who argued that the EPA was trying to regulate water itself as a pollutant.
    In his ruling, O’Grady said:
    “Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it.” attempting to regulate stormwater runoff into a Fairfax County creek as a pollutant.
    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/03/court-stormwater-runoff-not-a-pollutant-epa-cant-regulate-it/#ixzz2nIx4EdeJ
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    Maryland’s $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR EPA MANDATED, UNFUNDED, RAIN TAX

    PER RESPONSE FROM SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL SEPT. 24, 2013
    EPA Sued and Settled

    Posted on November 3, 2013 12:02 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Indeed the EPA was sued, the EPA settled and
    Sen. Maria Cantwell documented that the “sue and settle” legal settlement and rule created by and for the epa unfunded mandate did result in the $14.8 billion dollar Maryland rain tax.
    was not a result of legislation by congress, but was in fact caused by an EPA settlement.
    Thank you for contacting me about federal stormwater standards. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

    FOLLOWING A 2010 LEGAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE EPA AND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION (FOWLER V. EPA),
    THE EPA AGREED TO CREATE A NEW FEDERAL STORMWATER RULE.
    The RULE will create performance standards for stormwater discharges at both newly developed and redeveloped sites, broaden the EPA’s oversight of Chesapeake Bay stormwater permits and set a standard for the total maximum daily discharge.

    The RULE will also potentially increase the number of cities regulated as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, which can include underground pipes, roads with drainage pipes, gutters and ditches. Prior to developing the proposed stormwater rules, the EPA sought input from stakeholders in public forums. The EPA expects to finalize the RULE by December 10, 2014.
    Following a 2010 legal settlement between the EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (Fowler v. EPA), the EPA agreed to create a new federal stormwater rule.
    ———————————————————————————————

    Excerpt from “Clouded Waters”
    Importantly, these rulemakings are not the result of legislation or the outcome of scientific findings. Instead, these are the result of lawsuits by environmentalists and represent changes in long-held EPA positions, making discretionary duties non-discretionary. Additionally, in a rush to regulate, EPA is moving ahead without solid science and with no input from the communities who will shoulder the costs.

    Limited state and federal assistance leaves many communities with few options other than to pass the extra costs of these programs and mandates onto residents, and the benefits of regulation do not outweigh the costs.
    As this report also shows, they will likely be significant pain for little, if any environmental gain

    The law’s fiscal policy note pegs the price tag for implementing the program at $14.8 billion.
    The law’s fiscal policy note pegs the price tag for implementing the Maryland program at $14.8 billion.
    Notes: Exhibit does not reflect costs associated with controlling combined sewer and sanitary overflows or the implementation of the “Health Air Act”
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    As Gazzette columnist Blair Lee notes, the law is not so firm on where the money can be spent. In addition to funding stream and wetlands protection, a great deal of the tax revenue will flow into the bureaucratic maw for monitoring and inspection. Also, like the carbon pork in Maryland’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative law taxpayer dollars from the rain tax will flow into the hands of the environmental groups that lobbied for the law, for “outreach” and “education.”

    ————————————————————————————————-
    Presidential Documents
    Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as
    supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 Fed. Reg. 3821
    (Jan. 21, 2011).
    FEDERAL REGISTER
    Vol. 76, No. 14
    Friday, January 21, 2011
    Title 3—
    The President
    Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011
    Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    Sec. 2.
    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
    (a) Regulations SHALL be adopted through a process that involves PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. To that end, regulations shall be based, to the extent feasible and consistent with law, ON THE OPEN EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials, ex¬perts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole.
    (b)
    To promote that open exchange, each agency, consistent with Executive
    Order 12866 and other applicable legal requirements, shall endeavor to
    PROVIDE THE PUBLIC with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory
    process. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency SHALL
    AFFORD THE PUBLIC A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally
    be at least 60 days.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    Inserted for clarity
    June 28, 2012 |
    9:00am in 2203 Rayburn House Office Building
    THE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE has focused a significant amount of attention this Congress on the red tape that is strangling economic growth and holding us back from prosperity.
    At today’s hearing, we will continue this inquiry by examining the highly questionable practice perfected by THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY – KNOWN AS “SUE AND SETTLE,” which has emboldened the Administration to pursue an aggressive green agenda while escaping political accountability for the cost and burdens these regulations impose on job creators.
    In the past 3 years, the Administration has concluded approximately 60 settlements with special interest – 29 of these agreements bound EPA to make major policy changes. THE PLAINTIFFS IN THESE CASES ARE OFTEN THE VERY SAME REOCCURRING PLAYERS – THE SIERRA CLUB, NRDC, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WILD EARTH GUARDIANS, AND CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.

    But let us be clear – What EPA claims the law requires them to do is nothing more than what EPA has agreed to do in A COLLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT WITH SPECIAL INTEREST ALLIES. These arrangements are fundamentally unfair, lack transparency, are DESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT other regulatory checks CONGRESS HAS PUT IN PLACE. environmental regulations only work when they are made in an open process that involves all stakeholders. SUE-AND-SETTLE RULEMAKING is an affront to that process.
    —————————————————————————————

    Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 continued

    To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each
    AGENCY SHALL ALSO PROVIDE, for both proposed and final rules, timely online access to the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov, including relevant sci¬entific and technical findings, in an open format that can be easily searched and downloaded. For proposed rules, such access SHALL INCLUDE, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings
    (c)
    Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where
    feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to
    be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who
    are potentially subject to such rulemaking.
    Sec. 3.
    Integration and Innovation.
    Some sectors and industries face a signifi¬cant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping. Greater coordination across agencies could re¬duce these requirements, thus reducing costs and simplifying and harmo¬nizing rules. In developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, sim¬
    plification, and harmonization. Each agency shall also seek to identify, as
    appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote
    innovation.
    Sec. 4.
    Flexible Approaches.
    Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with
    regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall
    identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and main¬tain flexibility and FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR THE PUBLIC. These approaches
    include warnings, appropriate default rules, and DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
    AS WELL AS PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC IN A FORM THAT IS CLEAR AND INTELLIGIBLE
    Sec. 5.
    Science.
    Consistent with the President’s Memorandum for the Heads
    of Executive Departments and Agencies, ‘‘Scientific Integrity’’
    (March 9, 2009), and its implementing guidance, each agency SHALL ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency’s regulatory actions.
    Sec. 6.
    Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules.
    (a) To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or EXCESSIVELY BURDENSOME, and to modify, streamline, expand, OR REPEAL THEM in accordance with what has been learned. Such retrospective analyses, including supporting data, should be released online whenever possible.
    (b)
    Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency shall develop
    and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary
    plan, consistent with law and its resources and regulatory priorities, under
    which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations
    to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined,
    expanded, OR REPEALED SO AS TO MAKE THE AGENCY’S REGULATORY PROGRAM MORE EFFECTIVE OR LESS BURDENSOME in achieving the regulatory objectives.

    ———————————————————————————

    Sue and Settle – The Growing Problem of Closed-Door Rulemaking …
    www.jdsupra.com/…/sue-and-settle-the-growing-problem-of-16599/‎
    Apr 8, 2013 – So-called “sue and settle” tactics are becoming an increasingly … the accelerated timelines can afford little or no opportunity for review of new …
    ———————————————————–

    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce
    www.uschamber.com/sites/default/…/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.p…‎
    additional methodology and the development of a database of sue and settle cases. ….. with no participation by other affected parties or the public.12 ….. states an estimated $2.16 billion over and above what they had been prepared to spend …
    —————————————————————————————————–
    12 states sue EPA over agency’s alleged ‘sue and settle’ tactics
    Fox News ^ | July 17, 2013/
    ————————————————————————————————-
    States Investigate EPA’s “Sue-and-Settle” Practice – ACOEL
    www.acoel.org/…/States-Investigate-EPAs-Sue-and-Settle-Practice.aspx‎
    Jan 15, 2013 – At issue is the EPA’s practice of entering into voluntary settlements of … public participation and judicial review; (ii) how billions of dollars in added costs … Tags: EPA, SUE-AND-SETTLE, OFF-RAMP RULEMAKING, COLLUSIVE SETTLEMENTS.
    Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President William Kovacs said at yesterday’s hearing that sue and settle is the vehicle by which EPA has instituted at least 16 rules in recent years, including such controversial regulations as New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities and refineries; revisions to the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and Clean Air Act regulations on oil and gas drilling operations.
    Kovacs said, the Treasury Department’s Justice Fund is set up in such a way that information on who and how much money is paid in the settlement process is not disclosed.
    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/07/15/15greenwire-house-republicans-accuse-epa-enviros-of-collus-69925.html
    House Republicans Accuse EPA, Enviros of Collusion
    By JOHN MCARDLE of Greenwire

    Published: July 15, 2011
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    What Do SECRET “SUE-AND-SETTLE” deals have to do with the Dodd Frank Act?
    Dodd-Frank Act Regulatory Reform Rules – Federal Reserve Bank of …
    www.stlouisfed.org › Banking‎
    Dodd-Frank Act Regulatory Reform Rules. A roadmap for tracking the rulemaking process from start to finish?
    President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law. yet another landmark piece of legislation putting the middle class ABOVE THE SPECIAL INTERESTS? THAT FOR SO LONG HAD A STRANGLEHOLD ON AMERICA’S GOVERNMENT?
    GO FIGURE?
    Quayle says that more sue and settle regulations could come out of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law, which has already missed a series of regulatory deadlines.


  • Whale Tales on U.S. Justice

    A Whale Tale on Justice SEP 20, 2013
    JPMorgan Pays $920 Million to Settle London Whale Probes …

    www.bloomberg.com/…/jpmorgan-chase-agrees-to-pay-920-million-for-…‎
    SEP 20, 2013 – JPMorgan Agrees to $920 Million `Whale” of a Fine … While the lender made admissions in yesterday’s SEC settlement that tarnish Dimon’s …
    ————————————————————————–
    ce.fortune.cnn.com/tag/us-securities-and-exchange-commission/

    In the end, the whole SEC settlement with JPMorgan is kind of bizarre

    The rest of the settlement that is being collected by U.S. regulators is going back to the Treasury?

    A restitution fund for people?

    How can we expect our citizens to have any faith in the rule of law?
    —————————————————————————————————-
    Monday, December 09, 2013 11:49 a.m. CST
    And then there is this $13 BILLION JPMORGAN SETTLEMENT
    —————————————————————————————————
    My comment So what’s new?

    How will the GOVERNMENT divide the record $13 billion payout?

    $4 BILLION IN CONSUMER RELIEF?

    “FLOP, FLOP, FIZZ, FIZZ, OH, WHAT A RELIEF? IT IS?” … IS MARKETED FOR RELIEF OF MINOR ACHES, PAINS, INFLAMMATION, FEVER, HEADACHE, HEARTBURN, SOUR …

    In the end, the whole SEC $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan is kind of bizarre

    Believe it or not? The JPMORGAN bank will also receive credit for demolishing abandoned homes and other efforts focused on curbing urban blight.(CAUSED BY CORRUPT GOVERNMENT)

    IS The rest of the settlement that is being collected by U.S. regulators is going back to the Treasury?

    IS THERE DIRECT Restitution for people?

    How can we expect our citizens to have any faith in the rule of law?
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    The announcement, expected as soon as Tuesday Dec.. 10, 2013, will detail how the GOVERNMENT will divide the record $13 billion payout, with $4 billion directed to struggling homeowners.

    The $4 BILLION in consumer relief, directed at hard-hit areas like DETROIT,

    is a crucial element of the deal. Nearly half of that sum, one person briefed on the deal said, will go to reducing the balance of mortgages in foreclosure-racked areas
    ————————————————————————————————————
    My comment

    Hard-hit areas like DETROIT? Hard hit with GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

    Kwame M. Kilpatrick, Former Detroit Mayor, Sentenced to 28 Years …
    www.nytimes.com/…/former-detroit-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick-sentencing…‎

    Oct 10, 2013 – Former Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick apologized for putting the people of his city through a corruption scandal so vast that prosecutors say it …

    INDEED, $4 BILLION in consumer RELIEF?

    If JPMorgan fails to spend the entire $4 billion before that 2016 deadline, it will have to pay an amount equal to the unexpended funds either to the government or to a nonprofit organization designated by the government.

    Hard-hit areas like DETROIT? Hard hit with GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION

    34 PEOPLE CONVICTED IN FEDERAL PROBE OF DETROIT CORRUPTION | DETROIT …
    www.freep.com/article/20131010/NEWS/310100184/‎
    by Jim Schaefer – in 168 Google+ circles

    Oct 10, 2013 – Counting Kwame Kilpatrick, Bobby Ferguson and Bernard Kilpatrick, 34 people have been convicted in the federal government’s probe of …
    How corruption deepened Detroit’s crisis – USA Today

    www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/…corruption…detroits…/2929137/‎
    Oct 6, 2013 – DETROIT — Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was a spender, a schemer and a liar. And taxpayers paid for it, by the millions. Over seven …

    Under the $4 billion in relief settlement, the people briefed on the deal said, JPMorgan will have to hire an independent monitor to oversee the distribution of the $4 billion in relief, a black mark for a bank once considered one of Wall Street’s most trusted institutions.

    —————————————————————————
    Monday, December 09, 2013 11:49 a.m. CST
    Republican SEC member blasts $13 billion JPMorgan settlement
    ————————————————————————————–
    THE Whale tale on Justice

    ce.fortune.cnn.com/tag/us-securities-and-exchange-commission/
    Did the SEC let JPMorgan off the hook?

    In the end, the whole SEC settlement with JPMorgan is kind of bizarre.
    The SEC is putting the $200 million JPMorgan is paying to settle the charges into a restitution fund for people who were harmed by the London Whale trading fiasco. Good luck finding them.

    (The rest of the settlement that is being collected by U.S. regulators is going back to the Treasury.

    Taxpayers, when will you stop being subsidized by the big banks?)
    —————————————————————————————–
    If you are up to it? get out the Alka-Seltzer and continue reading
    —————————————————————————

    http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/22/the-13-billion-jpmorgan-settlement-is-a-good-start-%E2%80%94-now-someone-should-go-to-jail/

    “People know that if they rob a bank they will go to jail,” Kaufman said. “Bankers should know that if they rob people they will go to jail too.” Can we hear an amen on that? Not yet. But the complaint Kaufman voiced repeatedly is now on the table. “At the end of the day,” the senator warned, “This is a test of whether we have one justice system in this country or two. If we do not treat a Wall Street firm that defrauded investors of millions of dollars the same way we treat someone who stole $500 from a cash register, then how can we expect our citizens to have any faith in the rule of law?” (See my piece from April 2011, “How Wall Street Crooks Get Out of Jail Free.”)

    The offenses include an all-star list of duped victims — of mortgage fraud against home-buyers, investor fraud against people and pension funds that purchased the rotten mortgage securities and defrauded the federal agencies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that bought the mortgage bonds and applied federal guarantees to them
    ——————————————————————

    U.S. Poised to Announce $13 Billion Settlement
    By BEN PROTESS and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
    Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. played a hands-on role in settlement talks with JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive.

    The Justice Department is set to announce a $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase over the bank’s questionable mortgage practices in the run-up to the financial crisis, people briefed on the deal said on Monday, as prosecutors and the bank hashed out the final details of the deal.

    The announcement, expected as soon as Tuesday, will detail how the government will divide the record $13 billion payout, with $4 billion directed to struggling homeowners. Under the settlement, the people briefed on the deal said, JPMorgan will have to hire an independent monitor to oversee the distribution of the $4 billion in relief, a black mark for a bank once considered one of Wall Street’s most trusted institutions.
    The settlement, which comes after months of negotiations, will resolve an array of state and federal investigations into the bank’s sale of troubled mortgage securities TO INVESTORS. Such securities, sold by banks across Wall Street, were at the center of the 2008 financial crisis.
    Related Links

    • Graphic: Tracking the JPMorgan Inquiries
    When the securities soured, generating billions of dollars IN LOSSES FOR PENSION FUNDS AND OTHER INVESTORS, federal and state authorities opened wide-ranging investigations into whether the banks had properly warned investors of the risks.

    JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, has become a symbol of that crackdown. And the size of the settlement reflects its magnitude. The $13 BILLION DEAL dwarfs all other settlements the Justice Department has exacted from a single company.

    The $4 BILLION in consumer relief, directed at hard-hit areas like DETROIT, is a crucial element of the deal. Nearly half of that sum, one person briefed on the deal said, will go to reducing the balance of mortgages in foreclosure-racked areas;
    ————————————————————————————————————
    Hard-hit areas like DETROIT? Hard hit with CORRUPTION
    INDEED, $4 BILLION in consumer RELIEF?

    If JPMorgan fails to spend the entire $4 billion before that 2016 deadline, it will have to pay an amount equal to the unexpended funds either to the government or to a nonprofit organization designated by the government.

    Hard-hit areas like DETROIT? Hard hit with CORRUPTION

    34 PEOPLE CONVICTED IN FEDERAL PROBE OF DETROIT CORRUPTION | DETROIT …
    www.freep.com/article/20131010/NEWS/310100184/‎
    by Jim Schaefer – in 168 Google+ circles
    Oct 10, 2013 – Counting Kwame Kilpatrick, Bobby Ferguson and Bernard Kilpatrick, 34 people have been convicted in the federal government’s probe of …
    How corruption deepened Detroit’s crisis – USA Today
    www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/…corruption…detroits…/2929137/‎
    Oct 6, 2013 – DETROIT — Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was a spender, a schemer and a liar. And taxpayers paid for it, by the millions. Over seven …

    ————————————————————————————————————
    JPMorgan will also be credited with up to $500 MILLION FOR BRIEFLY HALTING the collection of mortgage payments.

    For the remaining $2 BILLION in relief, the person said, JPMorgan has agreed to reduce interest rates on existing loans, offer new loans to low-income home buyers and keep those loans on its books. The bank will also receive credit for demolishing abandoned homes and other efforts focused on curbing urban blight.
    In addition to the $4 BILLION in consumer relief, JPMorgan will pay about $2 billion as a fine TO PROSECUTORS IN SACRAMENTO, CALIF. The prosecutors, who were planning to sue the bank until settlement talks heated up in September, suspected JPMorgan had failed to fully disclose the risks of buying mortgage securities.

    The government earmarked the final $7 billion as compensation for investors. The largest recipient will be the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which announced a $4 billion deal with JPMorgan last month. The agency oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing finance giants that purchased billions of dollars in mortgage securities that later imploded.

    THE REST WILL BENEFIT A CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION, ALONG WITH THE NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS GENERAL. The authorities are likely to pass on the compensation to investors in their states.
    A version of this article appears in print on 11/19/2013, on page B3 of the NewYork edition with the headline: JPMorgan Settlement Nearly Ready.


  • Sen. Vitter on Sue and Settle

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been scrutinizing the Obama Administration’s problems with transparency, specifically focusing on
    secret “sue-and-settle” deals, the “sue and settle” maneuver that federal agencies,

    including the Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, use to advance their radical environmental agenda

    in a way that substitutes a judicial mechanism for the customary interface of legislation and agency rulemaking. The way this works is that extremist environmental groups (some of which receive government grants) sue the federal government on the grounds that agencies are failing to meet their regulatory obligations, and then, behind closed doors, the activists and Obama administration officials concoct a settlement agreement that furthers activists’ (and regulators’) radical goals.
    that Administration officials will make with far-left environmental groups to enact unnecessary and burdensome regulations without any input from those who will be affected, including States, local governments, and private citizens. Click here to read more.

    Forbes
    Op-Ed: The Obama Administration’s Transparent Lack Of Transparency
    By Henry Miller, October 31, 2013

    “How can you tell when a politician is lying,” an old quip begins. “His lips are moving.” This whopper for the ages from President Obama is getting a lot of attention: “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

    It turns out that under ObamaCare, these oft-repeated, unequivocal assurances do not apply to as many as 12 million Americans.

    The president has gone those outright lies one better by managing to mislead the American people even when his lips are motionless, a virtuoso performance of political ventriloquism. In spite of the president’s promise that his administration would be the most transparent in history, on matters big and small his minions constantly misrepresent, misbehave and betray our trust.

    High-profile examples include the stonewalling over the Benghazi murder of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, and the broken promises about ObamaCare. But there are plenty of other examples of gross malfeasance and mendacity by the Obama administration that are occurring largely out of the public eye.

    One that has received attention lately from Sen. David Vitter and other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee is the “sue and settle” maneuver that federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, use to advance their radical environmental agenda in a way that substitutes a judicial mechanism for the customary interface of legislation and agency rulemaking. The way this works is that extremist environmental groups (some of which receive government grants) sue the federal government on the grounds that agencies are failing to meet their regulatory obligations, and then, behind closed doors, the activists and Obama administration officials concoct a settlement agreement that furthers activists’ (and regulators’) radical goals.

    This process is typically pursued without consulting affected parties, including states, counties and municipalities that are the sites of the alleged deficiencies of regulation. Once a judge approves a settlement, the administration moves forward with implementing costly regulations that resulted from “wink-wink, nod-nod” negotiations between activist environmental groups and the government. According to Sen. Vitter, “Of the 250 species listings that could occur as a result of the 2011 closed-door settlements, many could have a significant impact on states and local governments, private property rights, energy development, and economic growth.”

    Leaving aside the merits of these agreements, they are arrived at via a flagrantly non-transparent process that evades the checks and balances of federal rulemaking and oversight.

    Another exemplar of the administration’s lack of transparency involves the irregular oversight applied to a genetically altered fish that has been treading water in regulatory limbo for years.

    The only new characteristic that distinguishes the “AquAdvantage” salmon from its wild cohorts is that it reaches maturity twice as rapidly. Its genetic changes – the insertion into the genome of a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a regulatory DNA sequence from the ocean pout – confer no detectable difference in the fish’s appearance, ultimate size, taste or nutritional value; it just grows faster, a tremendous economic advantage to those farming the fish in a closed water system. Its availability would also be a tremendous boon to consumers seeking low-fat and affordable options for sources of protein, especially in the face of food price inflation and the obesity epidemic.

    After almost 13 years of floundering over how to review this fish, in 2009 the FDA opted for the most stringent, expensive and dilatory regulatory approach among various possible policy choices. The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine chose to subject genetically engineered animals to the same burdensome pre-market approval procedures and regulations as veterinary drugs such as pain relievers and anti-flea medicines. The rationale was that the new DNA construct in the animal and any proteins it produces are analogous to drugs that have been injected or ingested – even though animals with identical traits introduced by techniques such as breeding or artificial insemination would not be subject to any premarket review at all.

    A more apposite and far less burdensome regulatory paradigm for animals used as food would be the approach taken by another FDA unit, the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, whose policies put the burden of ensuring the safety of foods and food ingredients on those who produce them. Its regulations prohibit the adulteration (contamination) or misbranding (mislabeling) of food, but the agency does not inspect or evaluate every new food prior to its sale in shops, supermarkets, or restaurants. Rather, federal oversight relies primarily on market surveillance and post-marketing regulation, and the FDA takes action if there is an apparent problem. This approach has worked quite well over many years.

    The law does require a premarketing safety review for certain food-related products judged to be higher-risk. These include most food additives – a class of ingredients that includes preservatives, emulsifiers, spices, sweeteners, and natural and synthetic flavors and colors, among others. In general, a food additive must be pre-approved if it will become a component of or otherwise affect the characteristics of a food and if it is “not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by qualified experts for its intended use.” (The AquAdvantage salmon would be GRAS.)

    If the FDA had applied the food-regulation paradigm to genetically engineered animals at the outset, the fast-maturing salmon would have been on our dinner plates during the Clinton administration.

    Not surprisingly, the FDA’s several years-long evaluation concluded that the AquAdvantage salmon has no detectable differences and that it “is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” And because the fish will all be sterile females and farmed inland, there is negligible possibility of any sort of “genetic contamination” of the gene pool or other environmental effects. Even in a worst-case scenario, these fish would be maladapted to compete in the wild.

    When in April 2012 the FDA completed its Environmental Assessment and was ready to publish it – the last necessary hurdle before approving the salmon – the decision-making was mysteriously expropriated by the White House. The review process vanished from sight and stalled until December, when the FDA was finally permitted to publish the EA (the unsurprising verdict: “no significant impact”), which should then have gone out for a brief period of public comment. (The comment period, which was extended, ended on April 26, but the salmon still has not been approved.)

    The reasons for the delay in FDA’s publishing the needed Environmental Assessment in April 2012 were revealed by the inspired investigative reporting of science writer Jon Entine. He related that the White House interference “came after discussions late last spring [2012] between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office [of the President], who were debating the political implications of approving the [genetically modified] salmon. Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity.”

    There’s another influence at work here that is arguably even more sordid. According to several independent, reliable sources, the continued delay in the approval of the AquAdvantage salmon is due to opposition to it from assistant White House chef Sam Kass. A chef who has a bachelor’s degree in history influencing critical governmental regulatory decisions that are typically made by Ph.D. scientists and professional regulators? What’s next – the Obamas’ chiropractor deciding whether a new Alzheimer’s drug should be approved?

    An example of the ripple effects of the government’s malfeasance is this, from an email to me from Henry Clifford, vice-president of AquaBounty: “Next week I am going to our project in Panama (which I manage) [where the salmon is being grown] to harvest 15,000 lbs of beautiful 15 lb (mean weight) AquAdvantage salmon, all of which will end up in a landfill. I can’t even donate the harvested fish to the poor. Our regulatory authorizations in Panama are only for ‘R&D’ (no human consumption) until we receive FDA approval.”

    Seven-and-a-half tons of high-quality salmon dumped into a landfill in an impoverished, protein-poor country – courtesy of a White House chef and Obama administration officials who claim they care about nutrition!

    Not only are such governmental actions detestable, they’re also probably illegal. Entine wrote last December:

    “A question remains whether the White House or FDA could face legal challenges for intervening in a scientific evaluation process that is supposed to be insulated from politics. The Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act requires that Health and Human Services secretary approve the AquaBounty application within six months after compliance with Section 512.”

    That was almost a year ago.

    These cynical machinations by the Obama administration should elicit outrage from scholars, the media and the public. Every corporate entity, like every individual, deserves fair, impartial and transparent treatment by the government. But in spite of the president’s promises, often we are getting quite the opposite. As David Sanger, the New York Times’ Washington bureau chief (who has worked for the paper there for two decades), said recently, “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

    One can understand the desire of the president and his minions to keep Americans from knowing what their government is doing, given that so much is amateurish, incompetent, heavy-handed and politically motivated. Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Dan Henninger wrote, “Mr. Obama’s partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don’t trust him. Whether it’s the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they’ve all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world’s important business doesn’t get done.”

    Henninger might have added others to the list of those who have become disaffected: industries regulated by the U.S. government, from energy exploration to health care to biotechnology – and also Americans at large, to whom the failures of transparency are increasingly transparent and repugnant.

    -30-
    Thursday, November 21, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    Eye on the EPA: EPA’s Takeover of the “Waters of the U.S.”
    Expanded water jurisdiction could lead to EPA controlling Americans’ backyard puddles…
    The U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) proposed a draft guidance in April 2011, defining the “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and giving EPA broad authority over regulating bodies of water, even on private property. Since the draft has been proposed, there has been significant criticism surrounding the guidance’s expansive interpretation of CWA jurisdiction. Instead of clearly abandoning the contemptuous guidance document outright, EPA has since doubled-down on one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history, with the development of a new rule that would give the federal government outright permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country and would provide a new tool for environmental groups to sue private property owners. (more … )

    Monday, November 18, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    ICYMI: Vitter on Fox News “Goal is to Shine Sunlight on Obama Administration to Have Openness & Transparency”

    Yesterday, U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, joined Fox News’ Shannon Bream on America’s News HQ to discuss the Obama Administration’s problems with transparency, specifically focusing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their reluctance to share documents and communication behind major regulatory decisions that affect millions of Americans. (more … )

    Friday, November 15, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    ICYMI: InsideEPA “Environmentalists Fight ‘Sue-and-Settle’ Bill Ahead of Looming Floor Vote”

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been scrutinizing the Obama Administration’s problems with transparency, specifically focusing on secret “sue-and-settle” deals that Administration officials will make with far-left environmental groups to enact unnecessary and burdensome regulations without any input from those who will be affected, including States, local governments, and private citizens. (more … )

    Wednesday, November 13, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    Vitter Statement before House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee Hearing on TSCA Reform

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, will testify at the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing today. Vitter will testify in support of legislation he coauthored with the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) to update the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. Vitter’s legislation is entitled the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. (more … )

    Wednesday, November 6, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    ICYMI: Vitter Presses for Answers on EPA’s Involvement in Secretive Process for Social Cost of Carbon Estimates

    During yesterday’s Environment & Public Works Subcommittee on Oversight hearing, U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) pressed Sarah Dunham, Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs within the Office of Air and Radiation for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for substantial answers on the Agency’s involvement in developing the Administration’s updated Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates. Ms. Dunham admitted that her office assisted the Interagency Working Group, providing technical analysis and modeling for developing the SCC estimates. As these estimates are used to justify the benefits of Agency rulemakings, Sen. Vitter wants to know who this anonymous group of people includes, what exact role they played in the broad interagency effort, and wants the EPA to be more transparent in how these estimates were developed. (more … )

    Tuesday, November 5, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    Vitter Summary Statement for “Fugitive Methane Emissions” Subcommittee Hearing

    Ranking Member Vitter Hearing Summary Statement
    U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Subcommittee on Oversight
    “Fugitive Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations”
    November 5, 2013
    (more … )

    Friday, November 1, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    Learning From The Shutdown
    Five Job-Killing Energy Policy Disasters That Are Creating Some Private-Sector Shutdowns
    Losing a job, being furloughed, or not knowing when your next paycheck is coming are all very serious, stressful experiences. So the EPW Republican staff hope that the Obama Administration takes the government shutdown as a learning experience. Maybe now they can consider the furloughs and cancelled paychecks they create in the private sector through their massive over-regulation of American energy. What about the burdens that places on American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers? (more … )

    Thursday, October 31, 2013

    ——————————————————————————–

    ICYMI: Forbes Op-Ed on Obama Administration’s Transparent Lack of Transparency
    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been scrutinizing the Obama Administration’s problems with transparency, specifically focusing on secret “sue-and-settle” deals that Administration officials will make with far-left environmental groups to enact unnecessary and burdensome regulations without any input from those who will be affected, including States, local governments, and private citizens. (more … )