Monday, March 23, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
What is the Smell in Port Townsend. So many Google what is the smell in Port Townsend. The Smell in Port Townsend is TOXIC, it will most likely make you SICK in visible and non-visible ways. The Smell in Port Townsend is BAD for ALL aspects of Healthy life in Port Townsend Washington
The Smell in Port Townsend is the Port Townsend Paper Mill's Toxic Emmissions.
This Blog Post is written in my opinion and to the best of my knowledge.
The Port Townsend Paper Mill takes 14 million gallons of pristine Olympic Mountain water a day from the Little Quilcene River and the Big Quilcene River, and they pollute it, fill it with toxins and create yucky toxic water that they dump into the Port Townsend Bay.
They have a SLUDGE pond that creates toxic soil and huge toxic odor. When they remove sludge in trucks it goes to unknown sources and is said to be able to be used as fill for playgrounds, parks, agriculture and other and that the Port Townsend Paper Mill does not have to disclose what is in the SLUDGE as that is the alleged legal responsibility of the end user.
The toxic air, of which is said to contain 1000 lbs of ammonia a day and other known carcigens, this causes massive health problems that many cannot recover from and so they leave Jefferson County, Port Townsend. Their Doctor even tells them, hey your kids can't get better here, or you can't get better here and so they have to move from this alleged pristine area.
Jefferson County seems to love the Port Townsend Paper Mill as many say it's the smell of money. Which is shocking, as it's money for big corporation, for doctors healing lung cancer and other major health problems the mill cause and as for the workers, they don't seem to mind that this affecting their health as yes they are making a living, the thing is, at what cost?
The toxins that the mill puts out, seems to be a known fact, it seems that Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend and Washington Department of Ecology simply looks the other way and keeps this toxic waste site (in my opinion) spewing air that is harming the health and public safety of the area ( in my opinion due to the ability to read). They seem to do this willfully and wanton, to protect the mill and the jobs that come with it.
The Washington Governor seems big on taxing companies that spew CO2, this mill spews tons daily and for now they seem to hve no conscience nor accountability held on them and are even self monitored.
The WA Governor recently called for an emergency drought on the Olympic Peninsula, oh well, who cares right?
The city of Port Townsend uses 1 million gallons a day for the needs of the people. The Port Townsend Paper Mill pollutes and wastes 14 million gallons a day with total disregard for the environment, or the people ( in my opinion).
The EPA seems to know what is coming out of the Port Townsend Paper and so does the Washington Department of Ecology, and they look the other way.
We have otters, whales, herons, and tons of sea life and wildlife here as well as lot's of organic farms, and well lot's of people that want and have a legal right as a matter of law to Clean Air and Clean Water. Yet this issue is swept under the proverbial rug over and over.
It makes no sense how Jefferson County Washington can have Organic Farms when the air is polluted as far as the information I have seen.
Go out at night, with a flashlight, tons of yellow fine particles, YEP you come to Port Townsend, our beautiful amazing town and you breath Toxic Air, so does your children, your babies, elderly and guess what; the worst of the "what's that smell" in Port Townsend goes right into our hospital and schools; oh well the county, state and federal officials look the other way to create toxic jobs.
http://www.porttownsendpaper.com/
The Port Townse Smell is Port Townsend Paper Mill Emissions
http://ptairwatchers.org/port-townsend-paper-mill-emissions/
Why is the Port Townsend Paper Mill ALLOWED by the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Washington to put KNOWN Toxins into the Air, Water and Soil?
EPA Did NOTHING
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/pulp-mills-09-26-2011.html
http://www.nationofchange.org/paper-mill-air-pollution-standards-25-years-out-date-environmental-groups-sue-epa-1323967682
Jefferson County Public Health Does NOTHING
http://jeffersoncountypublichealth.blogspot.com/2014/12/state-of-washington-department-of.html
Remember when Reading Blogs, When You get to the bottom, go to the lower right and click older posts to keep going.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Toxic Air
http://olympicgazette.blogspot.com/search?q=Paper+Mill
http://porttownsendnews.blogspot.com/search?q=Paper+Mill
Port Townsend Mill Facebook information
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/245153762294452?fref=ts&__nodl
PT Airwatchers Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/10150099332035319/?fref=ts
PT Airwatchers Web Site
http://ptairwatchers.org/
Massive Co2 YET County, State, EPA all do NOTHING but Protect the Mill
http://ptairwatchers.org/2014/10/06/pt-paper-emits-1-6-times-as-much-co2-as-all-other-sources-in-jeffco-wa/
The Toxic Pond (this article was removed by the Port Townsend Leader, who I allege protects the Port Townsend Mill to Knowingly Poison the Port Townsend People
https://web.archive.org/web/20130423165340/http://ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=33384
Background about the Smell in Port Townsend
http://ptairwatchers.org/background-the-stink/
The Air Makes Some Dizzy, Check Out this guy
What Does it Smell Like in Port Townsend and Port Hadlock / Irondale?: https://youtu.be/3k4mT1sI37I
I myself stayed at the Manresa Castle for a while and woke up some nights seizing in my chest. Felt like my organs were shutting down, throat badly swollen. Sinuses burning badly. Stomach Cramping, Eyes Swollen. Horrible inner ear pain.
I have lived rural here as well and had burning eyes, ear pain and other symptoms. So why stay? The thing is Port Townsend is such a cool town, and it's so beautiful here. The people are so amazing and well I love it here. Plus for me it is a Spiritual Calling. However, whether we choose to stay or leave the smell and toxic air of Port Townsend or not, the Port Townsend Paper Mill is seemingly breaking the law and causing a public safety issue and environmental hazard and it's time to STOP.
I know many who have had to leave to get their children to safe air. This is a serious issue and seems to be something that Jefferson County is either unable or unwilling to tackle. Clearly the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act as well as our constitutional rights should trump the alleged "Smell of Money" YAP they use to keep poising the Port Townsend Bay, Port Townsend Air, Whales, Otters, Babies, those in the local hospital, fish and wildlife, organic farms and all of us citizens who SHOULD have the legal rights to Clean Air, Clean Water and Clean Soil.
http://olympicnationalforestnews.blogspot.com/2014/12/investigative-blogger-crystal-cox-says.html
What is that Horrible Smell in Port Townsend ?
Call the County, Call the Mayor, Call your Commissioners, Call the State Department of Ecology, Call your Senator, Call the Governors Office, File Lawsuits, File Attorney General Complaints. I believe the Port Townsend Paper Mill is breaking the LAW. Expose them, Sue them.
Also Call These Numbers to Complain
Stephanie Ogle, PE
This Blog Post is written in my opinion and to the best of my knowledge.
The Port Townsend Paper Mill takes 14 million gallons of pristine Olympic Mountain water a day from the Little Quilcene River and the Big Quilcene River, and they pollute it, fill it with toxins and create yucky toxic water that they dump into the Port Townsend Bay.
They have a SLUDGE pond that creates toxic soil and huge toxic odor. When they remove sludge in trucks it goes to unknown sources and is said to be able to be used as fill for playgrounds, parks, agriculture and other and that the Port Townsend Paper Mill does not have to disclose what is in the SLUDGE as that is the alleged legal responsibility of the end user.
The toxic air, of which is said to contain 1000 lbs of ammonia a day and other known carcigens, this causes massive health problems that many cannot recover from and so they leave Jefferson County, Port Townsend. Their Doctor even tells them, hey your kids can't get better here, or you can't get better here and so they have to move from this alleged pristine area.
Jefferson County seems to love the Port Townsend Paper Mill as many say it's the smell of money. Which is shocking, as it's money for big corporation, for doctors healing lung cancer and other major health problems the mill cause and as for the workers, they don't seem to mind that this affecting their health as yes they are making a living, the thing is, at what cost?
The toxins that the mill puts out, seems to be a known fact, it seems that Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend and Washington Department of Ecology simply looks the other way and keeps this toxic waste site (in my opinion) spewing air that is harming the health and public safety of the area ( in my opinion due to the ability to read). They seem to do this willfully and wanton, to protect the mill and the jobs that come with it.
The WA Governor recently called for an emergency drought on the Olympic Peninsula, oh well, who cares right?
The city of Port Townsend uses 1 million gallons a day for the needs of the people. The Port Townsend Paper Mill pollutes and wastes 14 million gallons a day with total disregard for the environment, or the people ( in my opinion).
The EPA seems to know what is coming out of the Port Townsend Paper and so does the Washington Department of Ecology, and they look the other way.
We have otters, whales, herons, and tons of sea life and wildlife here as well as lot's of organic farms, and well lot's of people that want and have a legal right as a matter of law to Clean Air and Clean Water. Yet this issue is swept under the proverbial rug over and over.
It makes no sense how Jefferson County Washington can have Organic Farms when the air is polluted as far as the information I have seen.
Go out at night, with a flashlight, tons of yellow fine particles, YEP you come to Port Townsend, our beautiful amazing town and you breath Toxic Air, so does your children, your babies, elderly and guess what; the worst of the "what's that smell" in Port Townsend goes right into our hospital and schools; oh well the county, state and federal officials look the other way to create toxic jobs.
For More Information on your Google Search "What's that Smell In Port Townsend" Check Out the Links Below.
The Port Townse Smell is Port Townsend Paper Mill Emissions
http://ptairwatchers.org/port-townsend-paper-mill-emissions/
Why is the Port Townsend Paper Mill ALLOWED by the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Washington to put KNOWN Toxins into the Air, Water and Soil?
The Port Townsend Paper Mill is MAKING YOU SICK, Lowering Your Immune System and causing you Serious Health Risks
The Port Townsend Paper Mill is MAKING YOU SICK, Lowering Your Immune System and causing you Serious Health Risks
EPA Did NOTHING
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/pulp-mills-09-26-2011.html
http://www.nationofchange.org/paper-mill-air-pollution-standards-25-years-out-date-environmental-groups-sue-epa-1323967682
Jefferson County Public Health Does NOTHING
http://jeffersoncountypublichealth.blogspot.com/2014/12/state-of-washington-department-of.html
Remember when Reading Blogs, When You get to the bottom, go to the lower right and click older posts to keep going.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Toxic Air
http://olympicgazette.blogspot.com/search?q=Paper+Mill
http://porttownsendnews.blogspot.com/search?q=Paper+Mill
Port Townsend Mill Facebook information
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/245153762294452?fref=ts&__nodl
PT Airwatchers Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/10150099332035319/?fref=ts
PT Airwatchers Web Site
http://ptairwatchers.org/
Massive Co2 YET County, State, EPA all do NOTHING but Protect the Mill
http://ptairwatchers.org/2014/10/06/pt-paper-emits-1-6-times-as-much-co2-as-all-other-sources-in-jeffco-wa/
The Toxic Pond (this article was removed by the Port Townsend Leader, who I allege protects the Port Townsend Mill to Knowingly Poison the Port Townsend People
https://web.archive.org/web/20130423165340/http://ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=33384
Background about the Smell in Port Townsend
http://ptairwatchers.org/background-the-stink/
The Air Makes Some Dizzy, Check Out this guy
What Does it Smell Like in Port Townsend and Port Hadlock / Irondale?: https://youtu.be/3k4mT1sI37I
I myself stayed at the Manresa Castle for a while and woke up some nights seizing in my chest. Felt like my organs were shutting down, throat badly swollen. Sinuses burning badly. Stomach Cramping, Eyes Swollen. Horrible inner ear pain.
I have lived rural here as well and had burning eyes, ear pain and other symptoms. So why stay? The thing is Port Townsend is such a cool town, and it's so beautiful here. The people are so amazing and well I love it here. Plus for me it is a Spiritual Calling. However, whether we choose to stay or leave the smell and toxic air of Port Townsend or not, the Port Townsend Paper Mill is seemingly breaking the law and causing a public safety issue and environmental hazard and it's time to STOP.
I know many who have had to leave to get their children to safe air. This is a serious issue and seems to be something that Jefferson County is either unable or unwilling to tackle. Clearly the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act as well as our constitutional rights should trump the alleged "Smell of Money" YAP they use to keep poising the Port Townsend Bay, Port Townsend Air, Whales, Otters, Babies, those in the local hospital, fish and wildlife, organic farms and all of us citizens who SHOULD have the legal rights to Clean Air, Clean Water and Clean Soil.
A Few More Research Links
What is that Horrible Smell in Port Townsend ?
What is that Smell in Port Townsend?
Who to Call to Complain
Also Call These Numbers to Complain
Stephanie Ogle, PE
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Washington State Governor calls for Emergency Drought, yet the Port Townsend Paper Mill uses 14 million gallons of water a day and the city of Port Townsend only uses a Million a Day. City of Port Townsend seems to be taking this VERY serious and is about to let the public know.
So, not only does the Port Townsend Paper Mill pollute our air, water, and soil. But they also draw from the same water source as the town of Port Townsend and use 14 times more a day then the entire city of Port Townsend.
At the March 16th 2015 Port Townsend Commissioners meeting during the City Manager's Report, it was discussed about the situation of how much water the Port Townsend Paper Mill uses and how this affects the city of Port Townsend. They said this information will be out in an upcoming newsletter, probably in May.
Those reporting on the mill have discussed for years that the mill is using and seemingly polluting massive amounts of water, then putting it into the Port Townsend Bay.
The mill uses 14 MILLION gallons a day, even if they shut down in a state of emergency, they need a massive amount of water just to keep things going in a shut down mode, per the discussion at the commissioners meeting.
This is a very big deal and will hopefully wake up more of the Port Townsend Residents as to how BAD the Port Townsend Paper Mill is for Port Townsend.
News on Washington Drought State of Emergency
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0M92DJ20150313?irpc=932
Port Townsend is in an EMERGENCY drought situation yet the Port Townsend Paper Mill uses 14 million gallons of water a day.
Declared Emergency Drought Region
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150313/washington-governor-declares-drought-in-three-regions
Click Below for Video and Agenda of Port Townsend Commissioners Meeting Dating March 16th, 2015.
http://cityofpt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=1005
http://www.cityofpt.us/video.htm
It was discussed in the City Manager Report section of the commisser's meeting.
At the March 16th 2015 Port Townsend Commissioners meeting during the City Manager's Report, it was discussed about the situation of how much water the Port Townsend Paper Mill uses and how this affects the city of Port Townsend. They said this information will be out in an upcoming newsletter, probably in May.
Those reporting on the mill have discussed for years that the mill is using and seemingly polluting massive amounts of water, then putting it into the Port Townsend Bay.
The mill uses 14 MILLION gallons a day, even if they shut down in a state of emergency, they need a massive amount of water just to keep things going in a shut down mode, per the discussion at the commissioners meeting.
This is a very big deal and will hopefully wake up more of the Port Townsend Residents as to how BAD the Port Townsend Paper Mill is for Port Townsend.
News on Washington Drought State of Emergency
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0M92DJ20150313?irpc=932
Port Townsend is in an EMERGENCY drought situation yet the Port Townsend Paper Mill uses 14 million gallons of water a day.
Declared Emergency Drought Region
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150313/washington-governor-declares-drought-in-three-regions
Click Below for Video and Agenda of Port Townsend Commissioners Meeting Dating March 16th, 2015.
http://cityofpt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=1005
http://www.cityofpt.us/video.htm
It was discussed in the City Manager Report section of the commisser's meeting.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
hmm is this where Roger Hagan is going next?
| Visitor Analysis & System Spec | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search Referral: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Host Name: | 98-159-195-188.scottsboro.org | Browser/OS: | Silk 3.46/Linux | |||||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address: | 98.159.195.188 — [Label IP Address] | Mobile Device: | Amazon Kindle | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Location: | Scottsboro, Alabama, United States | Resolution: | 800x1219 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Returning Visits: | 0 | Javascript: | Enabled | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length: | Not Applicable | ISP: | Scottsboro Electric Power Board | |||||||||||||||||||||
Navigation Path
| Date | Time | WebPage |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Feb | 17:20:14 |
Why does the Port Townsend Leader (local newspaper) protect the Port Townsend Paper Mill to poison us? The SMELL in Port Townsend is POISON coming from the Port Townsend Paper Mill as far as I see it.
''The pond, the smell
PT mill's discharge permit, expired in 2009, now up for public review
A 33-acre pond – also known as an aerated stabilization basin – at the Port Townsend Paper Corp. is up for review this spring.
It is considered a source of odor that some in Port Townsend find offensive and others say is “the smell of a paycheck.” PT Paper has the largest industrial secondary waste permit in Jefferson County.
Allison Arthur, assistant editor
The first in a series of stories on the Port Townsend Paper Corp.’s proposed new discharge permit.
It’s affectionately called “the pond” at the Port Townsend Paper Corp. and less affectionately referred to as “the thing that stinks” by people who live near it or pass by it.
It is the largest industrial wastewater treatment plant in Jefferson County.
And starting April 24, paper company officials and the community have an opportunity to start discussing what conditions should apply to what is technically an aerated stabilization basin (ASB), when the state Department of Ecology issues a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit.
A public workshop and hearing follow, with comments taken through June 21.
The mill’s discharge permit, last written in 2004, expired in 2009. A new draft contains new requirements for monitoring groundwater, monitoring sediment under the outfall and well as studying the efficiency of the pond. These requirements are now up for public review, including at a public hearing likely to occur in late May or early June.
The mill’s permit to use, reuse, treat and then discharge more than 12 million gallons of water daily into Port Townsend Bay is likely to be controversial.
Both the PT AirWatchers and the Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs, two organizations that have been critical of the mill’s practices, have been eyeing the state’s progress on the permit review for months.
It is the third permit in four years that Jefferson County’s largest private employer has had to review with the public watching and commenting.
A permit to build a $55 million electric-generating biomass project, approved by the DOE in 2010, has been appealed by a group of environmentalists to the state Supreme Court.
A permit to continue to operate a 23-acre landfill, contested in 2012, is headed to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board in August.
Jefferson County and the DOE joined hands and want the mill to seek a more environmentally stringent permit; the mill is happy with a permit it’s had for years that doesn’t require testing or proof it has the financial means to close the landfill once its full.
And now comes the discharge permit, a permit some believe is caused by the treatment pond.
Although the mill’s discharge permit expired in 2009, both the DOE and the mill agree that the mill applied for a renewal on time.
“It’s a standard renewal,” said Kevin Scott, the paper company's new environmental director. “We applied in 2009 and Ecology is finally getting caught up with paperwork.”
“They regulate a lot of stuff. They are some busy people.”
Garin Schrieve, DOE industrial section manager who is in charge of the permit, said the permit has been routinely issued since national pollution laws were enacted in the 1970s.
Those permits typically are reviewed every five years.
“In this case, this permit was last written in 2004,” Schrieve said. “It should have been renewed in 2009 provided we had the resources.”
State officials say they didn’t have the resources and so didn’t review the permit until now.
DOE spokeswoman Lind Kent said it is not unusual for an expired permit to be extended. She likened it to a home lease that expires and converts to a month-to-month lease.
“We wish we could rewrite every permit before it’s expired,” Kent said.
The NPDES is under the federal Clean Water Act. Washington has an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer the program and oversee permits.
“If it’s not reissued in five years, provided the company had made an application for renewal on time, the permit stays in effect until it’s rewritten,” Schrieve said of where the permit is now.
So, until the permit is rewritten, which is happening now, the permit that was written almost a decade ago is still in effect.
The draft permit spells out discharge limitations for pollutants into Port Townsend Bay. By volume, it is the largest permit of six in Jefferson County.
“Port Townsend Paper Company is the largest discharger by volume of six permittees in Jefferson County. Their average daily discharge is 12 million gallons,”
Schrieve said. “The City of Port Townsend is the next largest discharger in the county with an average discharge of around 1.4 million gallons per day."
Other permit holders include Fort Flagler State Park, New Day Fisheries, located at the Port of Port Townsend, Olympic Corrections Center in West Jefferson County and the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Although a new discharge permit wasn’t reissued in 2009, the mill continued to monitor and comply with the requirements of the old permit, Schrieve said.
And DOE has been conducting on-site inspections. It did three inspections in 2012 and did sampling as part of an inspection on Aug. 1, 2012, officials said.
The mill was found out of compliance with its old permit 12 times since 2004.
A Leader story detailing those violations will be published later in this series.
Some of the changes in the new proposed draft permit include requirements for studies on the impact of the mill’s discharge of water on Port Townsend Bay.
“One of the things we do in permit reissuances is to look at the environmental data surrounding the discharge,” said Schrieve.
In this case, DOE is proposing to require the mill to conduct a “receiving water study” at its discharge location, which is about 1,200 feet from the shoreline, out in Port Townsend Bay.
The data would be used to help determine if the water quality standards are being met.
In addition, DOE wants a sediment impact analysis, which would require the mill to take samples of sediment around the outfall, 40 to 45 feet below the surface of the bay.
DOE also is asking for a study of groundwater impact associated with the treatment pond. The mill would be asked to study groundwater adjacent to and under the pond. Such testing has not been done before, Schrieve said.
Perhaps the most potentially controversial area of the permit involves the removal of sludge, or buildup, inside the pond. It is that buildup that could be contributing to what many people associate with “the smell.”
DOE is asking the mill to do an engineering study that looks at the pond's efficiency.
“We’ve asked for a treatment efficiency study before, but what we’re asking for that’s new is that we’re asking them in this study to look at how well the pond is treating those odorous compounds,” said Schrieve.
Odors associated with the pond could be produced by a number of different things, Schrieve said. It could be that the bacteria that eat the waste in the pond aren’t getting enough oxygen, or it could be decaying bacteria decomposing and producing hydrogen sulfide.
Some of the mill’s processes also produce odorous wastewater that are routed to the pond for treatment. So it could also be that compounds coming off the pond are contributing to the odor problems.
“I think the goal here is to determine how well the pond is destroying those smelly pollutants,” Schrieve said.
Up until 1971, effluent from the mill went straight into Port Townsend Bay, Scott said. Now, there is a primary treatment system as well as a secondary treatment system, which is what the pond does, he said.
Scott said the mill spent $3.5 million in 2005-2006 to upgrade the efficiency of the pond.
Although the pond holds 60 million gallons of water, it discharges an average of about 12 million gallons of water a day – roughly the same amount of water as it takes in each day.
In January, Scott said he didn’t know what changes might be included in a new discharge permit.
“You get a driver’s license in the state of Washington and every so often you have to renew it,” Scott said. “We have an operating permit for a water treatment system and you have to renew it every five years.”
Scott said the DOE’s Marc Heffner pays the mill unannounced calls and everything has to be ready for those spot inspections, including the pond.
“We might get a call from the gate house that Marc Heffner is here and he wants to come in,” Scott said. “If you knew the IRS could come into your home at any day and review your information, would you have it ready? We have to make sure it’s ready.”
Environmental watchdogs aren’t so sure the DOE or the mill have taken the public’s interest as seriously as Scott portrays.
Gretchen Brewer, who founded PT AirWatchers, said she was told initially that air emissions from the pond are not regulated by the discharge permit, but that the pond itself, including what material goes into it, is covered by the discharge permit.
“Fumes from the ASB have not been included at all,” said Brewer. “I think it is very important. It gives us another piece of where are things being accounted for.
“If they aren’t accounting for air emissions from the pond in the air permit, then they should be accounting for them in the water permit. And likewise, if they aren’t accounting for sludge in the landfill permit, where are they accounting for it?”
Brewer, Dave McWethy and others say the mill hasn’t accounted for a lot of sources of pollution – and the discharge permit is where that could change.
Editor’s note: The Leader endeavors to follow this permit process as it did with a permit for the landfill in 2012.''
Source of REMOVED article
https://web.archive.org/web/20130423165340/http://ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=33384
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shut-Down-the-Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/1600063010208886?skip_nax_wizard=true&ref_type=page_profile
https://www.facebook.com/groups/10150099332035319/
http://porttownsendpapermill.blogspot.com/
PT mill's discharge permit, expired in 2009, now up for public review
A 33-acre pond – also known as an aerated stabilization basin – at the Port Townsend Paper Corp. is up for review this spring.
It is considered a source of odor that some in Port Townsend find offensive and others say is “the smell of a paycheck.” PT Paper has the largest industrial secondary waste permit in Jefferson County.
Allison Arthur, assistant editor
The first in a series of stories on the Port Townsend Paper Corp.’s proposed new discharge permit.
It’s affectionately called “the pond” at the Port Townsend Paper Corp. and less affectionately referred to as “the thing that stinks” by people who live near it or pass by it.
It is the largest industrial wastewater treatment plant in Jefferson County.
And starting April 24, paper company officials and the community have an opportunity to start discussing what conditions should apply to what is technically an aerated stabilization basin (ASB), when the state Department of Ecology issues a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit.
A public workshop and hearing follow, with comments taken through June 21.
The mill’s discharge permit, last written in 2004, expired in 2009. A new draft contains new requirements for monitoring groundwater, monitoring sediment under the outfall and well as studying the efficiency of the pond. These requirements are now up for public review, including at a public hearing likely to occur in late May or early June.
The mill’s permit to use, reuse, treat and then discharge more than 12 million gallons of water daily into Port Townsend Bay is likely to be controversial.
Both the PT AirWatchers and the Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs, two organizations that have been critical of the mill’s practices, have been eyeing the state’s progress on the permit review for months.
It is the third permit in four years that Jefferson County’s largest private employer has had to review with the public watching and commenting.
A permit to build a $55 million electric-generating biomass project, approved by the DOE in 2010, has been appealed by a group of environmentalists to the state Supreme Court.
A permit to continue to operate a 23-acre landfill, contested in 2012, is headed to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board in August.
Jefferson County and the DOE joined hands and want the mill to seek a more environmentally stringent permit; the mill is happy with a permit it’s had for years that doesn’t require testing or proof it has the financial means to close the landfill once its full.
And now comes the discharge permit, a permit some believe is caused by the treatment pond.
Discharge permit delay
Although the mill’s discharge permit expired in 2009, both the DOE and the mill agree that the mill applied for a renewal on time.
“It’s a standard renewal,” said Kevin Scott, the paper company's new environmental director. “We applied in 2009 and Ecology is finally getting caught up with paperwork.”
“They regulate a lot of stuff. They are some busy people.”
Garin Schrieve, DOE industrial section manager who is in charge of the permit, said the permit has been routinely issued since national pollution laws were enacted in the 1970s.
Those permits typically are reviewed every five years.
“In this case, this permit was last written in 2004,” Schrieve said. “It should have been renewed in 2009 provided we had the resources.”
State officials say they didn’t have the resources and so didn’t review the permit until now.
DOE spokeswoman Lind Kent said it is not unusual for an expired permit to be extended. She likened it to a home lease that expires and converts to a month-to-month lease.
“We wish we could rewrite every permit before it’s expired,” Kent said.
The NPDES is under the federal Clean Water Act. Washington has an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer the program and oversee permits.
“If it’s not reissued in five years, provided the company had made an application for renewal on time, the permit stays in effect until it’s rewritten,” Schrieve said of where the permit is now.
So, until the permit is rewritten, which is happening now, the permit that was written almost a decade ago is still in effect.
Largest discharge
The draft permit spells out discharge limitations for pollutants into Port Townsend Bay. By volume, it is the largest permit of six in Jefferson County.
“Port Townsend Paper Company is the largest discharger by volume of six permittees in Jefferson County. Their average daily discharge is 12 million gallons,”
Schrieve said. “The City of Port Townsend is the next largest discharger in the county with an average discharge of around 1.4 million gallons per day."
Other permit holders include Fort Flagler State Park, New Day Fisheries, located at the Port of Port Townsend, Olympic Corrections Center in West Jefferson County and the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Although a new discharge permit wasn’t reissued in 2009, the mill continued to monitor and comply with the requirements of the old permit, Schrieve said.
And DOE has been conducting on-site inspections. It did three inspections in 2012 and did sampling as part of an inspection on Aug. 1, 2012, officials said.
The mill was found out of compliance with its old permit 12 times since 2004.
A Leader story detailing those violations will be published later in this series.
Studies sought
Some of the changes in the new proposed draft permit include requirements for studies on the impact of the mill’s discharge of water on Port Townsend Bay.
“One of the things we do in permit reissuances is to look at the environmental data surrounding the discharge,” said Schrieve.
In this case, DOE is proposing to require the mill to conduct a “receiving water study” at its discharge location, which is about 1,200 feet from the shoreline, out in Port Townsend Bay.
The data would be used to help determine if the water quality standards are being met.
In addition, DOE wants a sediment impact analysis, which would require the mill to take samples of sediment around the outfall, 40 to 45 feet below the surface of the bay.
DOE also is asking for a study of groundwater impact associated with the treatment pond. The mill would be asked to study groundwater adjacent to and under the pond. Such testing has not been done before, Schrieve said.
Perhaps the most potentially controversial area of the permit involves the removal of sludge, or buildup, inside the pond. It is that buildup that could be contributing to what many people associate with “the smell.”
DOE is asking the mill to do an engineering study that looks at the pond's efficiency.
“We’ve asked for a treatment efficiency study before, but what we’re asking for that’s new is that we’re asking them in this study to look at how well the pond is treating those odorous compounds,” said Schrieve.
Odors associated with the pond could be produced by a number of different things, Schrieve said. It could be that the bacteria that eat the waste in the pond aren’t getting enough oxygen, or it could be decaying bacteria decomposing and producing hydrogen sulfide.
Some of the mill’s processes also produce odorous wastewater that are routed to the pond for treatment. So it could also be that compounds coming off the pond are contributing to the odor problems.
“I think the goal here is to determine how well the pond is destroying those smelly pollutants,” Schrieve said.
Mill and opponents
Up until 1971, effluent from the mill went straight into Port Townsend Bay, Scott said. Now, there is a primary treatment system as well as a secondary treatment system, which is what the pond does, he said.
Scott said the mill spent $3.5 million in 2005-2006 to upgrade the efficiency of the pond.
Although the pond holds 60 million gallons of water, it discharges an average of about 12 million gallons of water a day – roughly the same amount of water as it takes in each day.
In January, Scott said he didn’t know what changes might be included in a new discharge permit.
“You get a driver’s license in the state of Washington and every so often you have to renew it,” Scott said. “We have an operating permit for a water treatment system and you have to renew it every five years.”
Scott said the DOE’s Marc Heffner pays the mill unannounced calls and everything has to be ready for those spot inspections, including the pond.
“We might get a call from the gate house that Marc Heffner is here and he wants to come in,” Scott said. “If you knew the IRS could come into your home at any day and review your information, would you have it ready? We have to make sure it’s ready.”
Environmental watchdogs aren’t so sure the DOE or the mill have taken the public’s interest as seriously as Scott portrays.
Accountability
Gretchen Brewer, who founded PT AirWatchers, said she was told initially that air emissions from the pond are not regulated by the discharge permit, but that the pond itself, including what material goes into it, is covered by the discharge permit.
“Fumes from the ASB have not been included at all,” said Brewer. “I think it is very important. It gives us another piece of where are things being accounted for.
“If they aren’t accounting for air emissions from the pond in the air permit, then they should be accounting for them in the water permit. And likewise, if they aren’t accounting for sludge in the landfill permit, where are they accounting for it?”
Brewer, Dave McWethy and others say the mill hasn’t accounted for a lot of sources of pollution – and the discharge permit is where that could change.
Editor’s note: The Leader endeavors to follow this permit process as it did with a permit for the landfill in 2012.''
Source of REMOVED article
https://web.archive.org/web/20130423165340/http://ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=33384
For more information on the Port Townsend stench and toxins in the air, check out
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shut-Down-the-Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/1600063010208886?skip_nax_wizard=true&ref_type=page_profile
https://www.facebook.com/groups/10150099332035319/
http://porttownsendpapermill.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
''PT Paper mill sold to newly created Crown Paper Group'' and thereby continue poisoning the City of Port Townsend. Crown Paper Group is now to continue the legacy of poisoning Port Townsend Washington.
''Port Townsend Paper Corporation has been sold to a newly created holding company, Crown Paper Group, that has also purchased PTPC's sister mill, Crown Packaging, which has mills in Canada, for an undisclosed amount.
Mill employees, public officials and community leaders were being informed this morning, Feb. 10, of the transaction, which is expected to be closed in the next few days, according to a press release.
A new holding company, Crown Paper Group, was formed by Lindsay Goldberg LLC of New York to buy the holding company that owned both mills. The holding company was wholly owned by GoldenTree Assets, an asset managing company based in New York.
No changes in Port Townsend mill operations were announced.
“It is very positive for the mill, our company and our community because the company that's purchasing us is interested in investing in our business and making it better and more viable for the future. They are interested in building the company,” said PTPC President Roger Hagan. Hagan plans to stay on as president under the new ownership.''
Source
http://www.ptleader.com/news/pt-paper-mill-sold-to-newly-created-crown-paper-group/article_57982090-b14f-11e4-834b-bfe9d4afa2e9.html
Jefferson County needs to enact laws to STOP the Crown Paper Group from poisoning us.
Mill employees, public officials and community leaders were being informed this morning, Feb. 10, of the transaction, which is expected to be closed in the next few days, according to a press release.
A new holding company, Crown Paper Group, was formed by Lindsay Goldberg LLC of New York to buy the holding company that owned both mills. The holding company was wholly owned by GoldenTree Assets, an asset managing company based in New York.
No changes in Port Townsend mill operations were announced.
“It is very positive for the mill, our company and our community because the company that's purchasing us is interested in investing in our business and making it better and more viable for the future. They are interested in building the company,” said PTPC President Roger Hagan. Hagan plans to stay on as president under the new ownership.''
Source
http://www.ptleader.com/news/pt-paper-mill-sold-to-newly-created-crown-paper-group/article_57982090-b14f-11e4-834b-bfe9d4afa2e9.html
Jefferson County needs to enact laws to STOP the Crown Paper Group from poisoning us.
Port Townsend Paper Corp. looks like it will continue to dump toxins into the Port Townsend Air now via Crown Paper Group, Inc. of Atlanta.
''PORT TOWNSEND — The Port Townsend Paper Corp., is changing ownership this week, with a newly formed holding company purchasing the mill and its assets, it was announced on Tuesday.
Crown Paper Group, Inc. of Atlanta will close on the sale later this week as it purchases the Port Townsend Holdings Company, Inc., which includes Port Townsend Paper Corp., along with Crown Corrugated Company in British Columbia, which does business as Crown Packaging and Boxmaster.
A sales purchase agreement has been signed and the transaction is expected to be finalized in the next few days, according to company president Roger Hagen.
The amount of the sale will not be publicly disclosed, Hagen said Tuesday.
The purchase will not immediately change operations at the mill, which employs about 300 employees and is Jefferson County's largest private employer.
Hagen said he plans to stay on as president and there will be no change in personnel in the near future.
The new company also has purchased other properties, including distribution centers in Kelowna, British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta, to form the new paper packaging company.
The sale process took approximately six months to complete, according to Alan Ulman, a spokesman for the new company.''
Source
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20150210/NEWS/150219999
Crown Paper Group, Inc. of Atlanta will close on the sale later this week as it purchases the Port Townsend Holdings Company, Inc., which includes Port Townsend Paper Corp., along with Crown Corrugated Company in British Columbia, which does business as Crown Packaging and Boxmaster.
A sales purchase agreement has been signed and the transaction is expected to be finalized in the next few days, according to company president Roger Hagen.
The amount of the sale will not be publicly disclosed, Hagen said Tuesday.
The purchase will not immediately change operations at the mill, which employs about 300 employees and is Jefferson County's largest private employer.
Hagen said he plans to stay on as president and there will be no change in personnel in the near future.
The new company also has purchased other properties, including distribution centers in Kelowna, British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta, to form the new paper packaging company.
The sale process took approximately six months to complete, according to Alan Ulman, a spokesman for the new company.''
Source
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20150210/NEWS/150219999
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Washington State Attorney General; Jefferson County Public Health
| Visitor Analysis & System Spec | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Referring URL: |
(No referring link)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Host Name: | Browser: | IE 11.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address: | 152.113.105.10 — [Label IP Address] | Operating System: | Win7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Location: | Seattle, Washington, United States | Resolution: | 1067x853 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Returning Visits: | 0 | Javascript: | Enabled | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length: | Not Applicable | ISP: | Washington State Attorney General | |||||||||||||||||||||
Navigation Path
| Date | Time | WebPage |
|---|---|---|
(No referring link)
| ||
| 4 Feb | 13:07:04 |
|
Friday, January 30, 2015
Monday, December 22, 2014
It is NOT Ok for Judges to Accuse YOU of a Criminal Act in a Federal Court of Appeals Ruling on a Civil Trial whereby no Criminal Charges were Filed and there was NO adjudicated Facts. Judges are NOT above the Law. Blogger Crystal Cox Calls out Overreaching Ninth Circuit Judges.
It is not Right, not Legal, and not Constitutional to accuse an Anti-Corruption Blogger of a CRIME in a Civil Case Ruling whereby that Blogger had no due process, no criminal investigation, no trial and no way to present evidence in defense of those allegations. No lower court ruling in any way.
Yet Ninth Circuit Judges accused an Anti-Corruption Blogger of criminal activity in a higher court, federal court of appeals ruling. And the "evidence" the Ninth Circuit Judges states as proof was a New York Times article of which was not based on any judicial finding or adjudicated fact.
In a Landmark Ruling that sets the Bar on First Amendment Rights of Bloggers and ENDS the Monopoly of Free Speech in which Big Media had for so long, as if in opposition to it's own ruling that bloggers have EQUALITY with the New York Times, we see higher court Judges using that same "Big Media", the New York Times, as adjudicated FACT that a blogger engaged in criminal activity and in a high court esteemed RULING, these Judges simply accuses Blogger Crystal Cox of felonious activities and extortionate acts with NO proof, no adjudicated facts and ONLY citing a New York Times article as proof of their defamatory, speech chilling, unconstitutional "pot shots" against a blogger exposing corruption judges, attorneys, cops, and giving voice to victims of all corruption.
This action is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional yet Judges do it all the time from Family Court to a Federal Court of Appeals across the United States. They do this same technique to "frame", set up, discredit, bully, harass and defame bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers in every town who are exposing judicial corruption at every level.
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox says it is not Ethical, Lawful, Nor Constitutional for a Judicial Ruling to accuse litigants of crimes they have not been convicted of. Crystal Cox says this is HOW Judges and Lawyers silence those exposing corruption.
Below is a bit of "media" on Blogger Crystal Cox appealing the Ninth Circuit Judges pot shot accusing her of criminal activity in a court of appeals ruling on a civil case.
"Despite her First Amendment court victory, Montana blogger Crystal Cox doesn’t like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suggestion that she shakes down reporting subjects for money in exchange for retractions. So she has asked for a retraction of her own from the court.
In January, the circuit held for the first time that bloggers like Cox have the same First Amendment protections as traditional media.
That was a big victory for bloggers generally and included overturning a $2.5 million libel verdict against Cox based on her accusations of fraud against a bankruptcy trustee.
What Cox didn’t like was a single sentence in the opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz that stated,
“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”
Last week, her lawyer Eugene Volokh asked the court to amend its opinion, not to change the substance of the ruling, but to delete the offending sentence. The claim of “payoffs” was based on a single New York Times article in 2011.
“A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word ‘apparently,’ could be based on the record in a case, or authoritative finding by another court.
But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process,” Volokh wrote. He said there “seems to be no ‘history’ of ‘seeking payoffs’ claimed in the article, he said.
Not surprisingly, some news outlets repeated the sentence but omitted the term “apparently,” he said. Journalists may perceive it as a factual finding, not just recitation of a newspaper column’s claim.
Thus Cox has asked for the court to redact the sentence from its opinion."
Source of the Quote Above
http://www.trialinsider.com/?p=4569
Here is Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit
Crystal Cox's Statement In Support of Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
Blogger Crystal Cox was DENIED the removal of the defamatory remarks by the very JUDGES who made the remarks, which Cox claims is a conflict of interest and violates her rights.
After this Blogger Crystal Cox goes Pro Se again and files an appeal Petition to the Supreme Court. Below are the Details of that Filing.
Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
" INTRODUCTION
Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:
Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.
Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?
Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves wrongful, non-adjudicated allegations of criminal conduct made by Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ against Petitioner, Defendant Cox and clearly violating her constitutional rights, human rights, and rights to due process, as a matter of law. ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ Stated that Petitioner Cox; " has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling.
Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government.
I Pray that this esteemed panel, this court, send a clear message to the Ninth Circuit, and essentially all Appellate Judges and all judges across our court system, that it is not ok, not ethical, not constitutional nor lawful to ad lib, make criminal allegations, introduce new case information into the appeal process, slander and defame litigants, and abuse the power of their process and esteemed role to retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers in every town in the United States and essential the world.
The Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit ruling is known well, worldwide and is the most prominent case to date of a blogger making a court rule on whether a blogger has rights equal to a journalist when it comes to the First Amendment, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws and Free Speech Rights.
Crystal Cox, Free Speech Case fighting to Equal rights of bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Whistleblowers as New York Times, Forbes and other traditional, mainstream media.
Here is a Video of Crystal Cox regarding her
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkYW7nl4774
Yet Ninth Circuit Judges accused an Anti-Corruption Blogger of criminal activity in a higher court, federal court of appeals ruling. And the "evidence" the Ninth Circuit Judges states as proof was a New York Times article of which was not based on any judicial finding or adjudicated fact.
In a Landmark Ruling that sets the Bar on First Amendment Rights of Bloggers and ENDS the Monopoly of Free Speech in which Big Media had for so long, as if in opposition to it's own ruling that bloggers have EQUALITY with the New York Times, we see higher court Judges using that same "Big Media", the New York Times, as adjudicated FACT that a blogger engaged in criminal activity and in a high court esteemed RULING, these Judges simply accuses Blogger Crystal Cox of felonious activities and extortionate acts with NO proof, no adjudicated facts and ONLY citing a New York Times article as proof of their defamatory, speech chilling, unconstitutional "pot shots" against a blogger exposing corruption judges, attorneys, cops, and giving voice to victims of all corruption.
This action is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional yet Judges do it all the time from Family Court to a Federal Court of Appeals across the United States. They do this same technique to "frame", set up, discredit, bully, harass and defame bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers in every town who are exposing judicial corruption at every level.
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox says it is not Ethical, Lawful, Nor Constitutional for a Judicial Ruling to accuse litigants of crimes they have not been convicted of. Crystal Cox says this is HOW Judges and Lawyers silence those exposing corruption.
Below is a bit of "media" on Blogger Crystal Cox appealing the Ninth Circuit Judges pot shot accusing her of criminal activity in a court of appeals ruling on a civil case.
"Despite her First Amendment court victory, Montana blogger Crystal Cox doesn’t like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suggestion that she shakes down reporting subjects for money in exchange for retractions. So she has asked for a retraction of her own from the court.
In January, the circuit held for the first time that bloggers like Cox have the same First Amendment protections as traditional media. That was a big victory for bloggers generally and included overturning a $2.5 million libel verdict against Cox based on her accusations of fraud against a bankruptcy trustee.
What Cox didn’t like was a single sentence in the opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz that stated,
“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”
Last week, her lawyer Eugene Volokh asked the court to amend its opinion, not to change the substance of the ruling, but to delete the offending sentence. The claim of “payoffs” was based on a single New York Times article in 2011.
“A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word ‘apparently,’ could be based on the record in a case, or authoritative finding by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process,” Volokh wrote. He said there “seems to be no ‘history’ of ‘seeking payoffs’ claimed in the article, he said.
Not surprisingly, some news outlets repeated the sentence but omitted the term “apparently,” he said. Journalists may perceive it as a factual finding, not just recitation of a newspaper column’s claim.
Thus Cox has asked for the court to redact the sentence from its opinion."
Source of the Quote Above
http://www.trialinsider.com/?p=4569
Here is Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit
Crystal Cox's Statement In Support of Motion to Rehear
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit
Blogger Crystal Cox was DENIED the removal of the defamatory remarks by the very JUDGES who made the remarks, which Cox claims is a conflict of interest and violates her rights.
After this Blogger Crystal Cox goes Pro Se again and files an appeal Petition to the Supreme Court. Below are the Details of that Filing.
Crystal Cox Blogger; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; First Amendment, Free Speech, Defamation Lawsuit, Shield Laws, Retractions Laws; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group LLC 13-9731
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
"The Petitioner is an Activist Litigant making a stand
for the rights of all
Citizen Journalists, Anti-Corruption Bloggers."
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731
" INTRODUCTION
Petitioner requests this court to issue a ruling that requires the Ninth Circuit to redact criminal allegations of Petitioner in a Ninth Circuit civil court ruling dated January 17th, 2014, Obsidian v. Cox, Ninth Circuit Case Number; 12-35319; D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057- HZ.
This issue is a matter that affects all members of the public.
Ninth Circuit Judges; Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.,and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, stated:
“. Cox apparently has a history of making similar
allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.
See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y.
Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting
allegations. This defamation suit ensued.”
Defendant Crystal Cox has no history of posting anything online and seeking a retraction for a payment. This is not based in fact, and has NEVER happened, as the court record clearly shows.
Cox was never “determined” by any court to have posted allegation, then sought a retraction, then continued posting and was sued. This is factually incorrect.
Cox alleges the Ninth Circuit violated her constitutional rights in alleging criminal activity and has stated in error, the events leading up to her defamation suit.
Cox asks this court to rule that criminal allegations be redacted from the Obsidian v. Cox Ninth Circuit ruling dated January 17th, 2014.
Petitioner Cox understands that it is at the sole judicial discretion of this court to hear this matter.
Cox prays that this court will hear this matter as these judicial actions will potentially chill speech and violate the rights of other citizen journalists, whistleblowers and anti-corruption bloggers such as Cox.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner requests this court to decide the following questions:
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have the legal authority to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case?
Does Petitioner, Litigants, in a Civil Case have a legal right to due process of law, in cases where Judges RULE that Litigants, such as petitioner have committed crimes of which Petitioner was not on trial for nor was a matter of record in the lower court ?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have to find a Defendant Guilty of a Crime, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, or to have been Adjudicated of that crime in a U.S Court, BEFORE they rule that a litigant such as petitioner is guilty of this criminal behavior or criminal activities?
Do litigants, such as petitioner, have a Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights
and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?
and Due Process of Law Rights that have to be adjudicated for a crime before a Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel can issue an “opinion” in a highly publicized, higher court, esteemed ruling, regarding that alleged crime?
Do Ninth Circuit Judges have a lawful right to use a New York Times article as adjudicated fact and material evidence to issue a ruling that a litigant in a civil case is guilty of criminal activity?
Is it Lawful for Ninth Circuit Judges to use gossip, hearsay and the rantings of a New York Times Journalist as adjudicated fact, and use this as factual evidence in a Ninth Circuit Ruling?
Can the Court of Appeals Prejudice a Litigant with false and defamatory language in a ruling?
Does a litigant have a right to have the language in the ruling challenged or reviewed by an independent Court, (for example, the Supreme or another Appellate Court not involved in the decision with the defamatory and legally abusive language that prejudices the rights of the litigant in rehearing) ?
Does the court have the right to defame and slander litigants and deny due process?
Do judges have the right to convict litigants of crimes in judicial rulings
based on New York Times articles?
Do Judges have a right to deny due process in lower courts by issuing a ruling that convicts litigants of crimes, thereby prejudicing them with a jury of their peers, as they return to have a new trial?
Do judges involved in a slanderous, possibly criminally defamatory statement have a legal and constitutional right to rule on whether they rehear this issue of them acting inappropriately and unlawful in that very ruling?
Is it lawful and within the constitutional rights of a Defendant such as Petitioner, for a panel of judges to use a New York Times article to convict a litigant in a civil trial of a crime of which they have not been adjudicated of ?"
" REASONS WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
To establish firm guidelines for all district court, judges and appellate courts that it is not constitutional, ethical nor lawful to render rulings that accuse litigants of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
To guarantee the rights, liberty, equality, freedom, due process rights, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution for all citizens, pro se litigants, anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistleblowers alike.
To guarantee the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all.
To guarantee the rights of due process and the Bill of Rights to all.
To end extreme prejudice by local, state, and federal judges whom use their power and position to silence, intimidate, suppress speech, bully, paint in false light, slander and defame litigants who expose corruption in the judicial system and of whom they have extreme prejudice in regard to.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Which thereby leads the public at large, media and the lower court in her pending $10 Million dollar Civil Case, to believe that Cox has been under investigation by authorities and found guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail. As it is ILLEGAL to make allegations and seek a payoff to retract those allegations.
Cox prays this Court orders the Ninth Circuit to redact the above statement.
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is not fair, ethical, equitable in rights, constitutional, nor appropriate as a matter of law and rules of procedure for Ninth Circuit judges or District Court Judges to state unrelated allegations, rumor and speculation in an esteemed higher court ruling, that is published to the world and affects the life of Petitioner forever, as well as affects all whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers like her.
Petitioner Cox alleges that it is an abuse of power and process, and an extreme violation of her human and civil rights, for Judges to use hearsay and rumors as adjudicated fact in an esteemed, higher court process, and to seek revenge, retaliate, and use extreme prejudice against Petitioner and litigants like her by using a prestigious court ruling to paint Petitioner in false light, slander and defame Petitioner and cause her a lifetime of irreparable harm.
Petitioner alleges that it is the duty of Ninth Circuit judges to report anyone they deem a danger to the public. If ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believe Cox to have a history of extortionate or blackmailing conduct, then it is their duty as public servants to order a criminal investigation by the proper authorities and it is NOT their duty, nor legal right to simply, flat out state, that Cox has a history of these criminal actions and thereby defame and slander Cox and put her under extreme prejudice as she heads back to the lower court Pro Se to face a $10 Million dollar civil court proceeding.
Petitioner and bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists like her, face extreme prejudice in the courts, as they are oftentimes exposing judges, attorneys and people in powerful positions such as CEO’s and Politicians.
This court ruling, essentially gives the rights to all Judges at every level of our court system, and essentially all institutional press “traditional journalists” to simply accuse litigants of crimes, activities, or unethical behavior, based on gossip and hearsay of an institutional press journalists such as Kashmir Hill of Forbes or David Carr of the New York Times, and have that be stated in a Ninth Circuit ruling as adjudicated fact.
Petitioner alleges that it violates her constitutional rights and the rights of those who engage in the same online activity as her, for Judges to essentially take “pot shots”, add in gossip and hearsay into a ruling and thereby slander, defame and ruin the life of the litigant.
Especially in cases such as the petitioner where she faces a retrial in a $10 million dollar civil case where she is indigent and cannot afford an attorney and this criminal accusation prejudices her lower court ruling before the trial even begins.
Petitioner alleges that allowing Ninth Circuit judges to state arbitrary allegations and accusations in authoritative higher court opinions, will potentially chill the online speech of all bloggers, whistleblowers, citizen journalists. As they will fear the same thing happening to them.
This is a critical first amendment issue. And a critical issue of due process laws, the fourteenth amendment, civil rights and human rights.
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right to due process in the criminal justice system and that it violates her constitutional rights for higher court, esteemed judges to rule on matters of her alleged criminal activity BEFORE she has been adjudicated or under investigation by the proper courts and legal procedure in the criminal justice system.
These accusations by Ninth Circuit judges prejudice the litigants such as petitioner in the re-trial at the D.C. level and put them under extreme prejudice in all matters of their life, even things as simple as renting a home or getting a job.
Those researching litigants such as petitioner find a higher court ruling, issued by esteemed judges in a powerful position of which the public at large deems to be of the utmost authority, in which accuses the litigant of criminal activities, of extortionate behavior.
This is a violation of Petitioners rights of due process and constitutional rights, as she now faces extreme prejudice, hate, inequality and duress in all aspects of her life. She is deemed a criminal, when she has not had due process in the criminal justice system. This precedence now makes it so that judges everywhere can do this same thing to essentially punish, retaliate against whistleblowers, citizen journalists and anti-corruption bloggers.
Does Petitioner, Defendant, Litigants in a Civil Case have a Human Right, Constitutional Right, and right under U.S. Code to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty?
Petitioner alleges that she has a constitutional right for it to be proven, as a matter of law, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is guilty of a crime, before Judges are allowed, by law, to state those allegations in a court ruling, a court opinion.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. There was neither in the Ninth Circuit appeal of Obsidian v. Cox.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Judges must have “Clear and Convincing Proof” beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE they are, by law allowed to state such allegations in a higher court ruling.
Cox was not on trial for crimes or civil matters involving allegations, investigations or even a cause of action regarding posting content or allegations of others online and then seeking a payoff to remove those allegations, (aKa Extortion or Blackmail).
Cox was on trial for defamation, and that this was the only cause of action.
There was no "seeking a payoff" to remove allegations, as a material factor of Obsidian v. Cox nor a factor in this case what so ever, therefore it was not a matter of record and cannot legally be brought into the Ninth Circuit proceeding, and certainly not, as a matter of law and constitutional rights, be stated in a Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling, opinion.
Petitioner Cox alleges that her Due Process of Law, Fourteenth Amendment Rights, and her rights under the Bill of Rights, have been violated by Judges accusing her of criminal activity in rulings / opinions in civil cases of which these crimes have nothing to do with. Cox alleges this is retaliation for her exposing corruption that involves judges, and people with financial and political power.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she has a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property.
Yet Cox was not given notice of the crimes alleged, nor a way to present her side.
Cox was not given due process, as a matter of law and constitutional rights and Cox has thus lost her life as she knew it, her liberty and has lost personal property in this matter.
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Petitioner Cox was not given due process, and was simply ruled guilty of criminal activities, with a New York Times article as material evidence in the matter and was thereby “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). Yet petitioner Cox was not given due process in the criminal justice system nor has Cox been adjudicated for or even under investigation for the crime of extortion, yet high court judges accused Cox of extortionate behavior in a ruling of a civil case, a defamation case, unrelated in it’s material fact, evidence and testimony to the crime of extortion and to of having “a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”, which is essentially the felony crime of blackmail, or extortion.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government.
Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to protect individuals such as Petitioner from arbitrary actions by state as well as federal governments, which includes the arbitrary actions of an esteemed higher court judicial panel in accusing petition and future litigants like her, of criminal activity of which was not a material factor in her case, and was simply hearsay by a traditional journalist of the institutional press, in this case a New York Time journalist, David Carr.
Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, and in this case there was severe prejudice and inequality and Cox has thereby suffered harm, and wishes this court to remedy this ruling to protect future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
Petitioner Cox alleges that, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and other human rights and civil rights laws, and constitutional amendments, that the actions of these judges deprived her of "fundamental fairness" and of Civil Rights under the Due Process Clause.
And now has the potential to do so to ALL future anti-corruption bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers such as herself.
And with this gives far reaching, unconstitutional powers to the institutional press and traditional journalists to publish gossip, hearsay and allegations and have Ninth Circuit judges and judges across the land, use these traditional journalists “opinion”, “writings”, “allegations” as adjudicated facts, hard and fast evidence, and sworn testimony that gives them the right to issue opinions and rulings that flat out accuse litigants such as petitioner of criminal activity of which they have not had due process of law in regard to.
The Bill of Rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due process.
These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms including the right to be told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Petitioner Cox was deprived of these rights, as Judges simply portrayed to the world she was guilty of criminal acts without having due process and without being told of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to be represented by an attorney; freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment; and the right to demand that the state prove any charges Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
The Decision of the Ninth Circuit to allow statement of non-adjudicated criminal accusations to be put into a ruling in a civil case, whereby the litigant has not had due process for those allegations is Clearly Incorrect.
Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ erred in stating that Cox had a history of these criminal activities and erred in stating the New York Times as their evidence of fact and material facts of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges do not have a lawful, constitutional right to issue an opinion on criminal allegations in a civil case in which the criminal allegation is not a matter of record in the lower court, has not been adjudicated and is not a material factor of the case.
Petitioner Cox alleges that she was denied a legal right to due process of law in this ruling that slandered and defamed her, and painted her in false light, thereby affecting the rest of her life.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ did not find Cox guilty of these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt nor did they adjudicate Cox, charge Cox with these allegations nor use adjudicated facts in issuing their judicial authority (opinion), (ruling).
And that it was an error to rule that Cox had a history of such criminal actions when Cox was not allowed due process and constitutional rights regarding these allegations.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ violated her Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Bill of Rights and Due Process of Law Rights by alleging Cox committed these criminal actions of which she had not been charged by a lower court nor the criminal justice system, as a matter of law.
Petitioner Cox alleges that Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ prejudiced her substantial rights, and this was not a harmless error as Cox now faces extreme hate, prejudice, slander and defamation and has a other judicial proceedings that are now prejudiced against her.
If Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ believed Cox to have committed theses Criminal acts, they SHOULD go through due process of law. Judges are NOT above the law.
CONCLUSION
This is a massive human rights and civil rights issue, as now all who expose corruption and break news, report on what is really happening in small towns, big cities and essential everywhere, have the same rights in the courtroom as does traditional journalists and the institutional press aKa big media.
Therefore it is imperative that this ruling does not be tainted with giving those same traditional journalists of the institutional press, super powers to have that same blogger alienated, outcast, painted in false light, prejudiced in other court proceedings, and have the world at large believe them to be a criminal and therefore not taken serious that in which they are exposing or reporting on.
This ruling that gave equality, seemed to have took it away in the very same ruling.
Petition Cox has NEVER, not even once in her life, posted anything online with the intention of seeking a payment for a retraction.
Cox has NEVER asked for money to remove anything she has posted online, and yet Ninth Circuit Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ANDREW D. HURWITZ are claiming, in a Ninth Circuit ruling that Cox has a “History” of doing such actions, seriously criminal, unconstitutional and unethical action.
As if Cox has a pattern and history of illegal, unethical behavior, of which there is NO History or Pattern. If these judges are allowed to put these unsubstantiated, unadjudicated, extremely biased and prejudice criminal allegations into a ruling in a civil case, then this will chill the speech of those in the future wishing to, wanting, or trying to expose corruption in their area of expertise, town, or state.
In Truth Petitioner Cox has dedicated her life, lost everything and been under extreme threats, retaliation, and extreme prejudice for nearly a decade, all because she did the right thing and stood up for others, for strangers and used her internet marketing skills to give voice to the victims of corrupt detectives, county commissioners, judges, cops, politicians, real estate companies, banks, finance companies, and victims of human trafficking, pedophilia, rape, and severe abuse.
Cox was RULED guilty of a crime of which she was not on trial for, was not adjudicated for and was not under investigation for. A crime that was NOT a material factor in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox.
It is not legal, due process, nor constitutional for these judges to have stated these false, unadjudicated allegations.
Petitioner respectfully request that the Ninth Circuit Court amend its opinion to withhold the sentence that now says, Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech , N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1.
A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” could be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court. But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the judicial process.
The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Adding this statement to the Obsidian v. Cox ruling dated January 17th, 2014 is Legally Flawed and Has Far-Reaching Consequences, and is thereby Warranting Review in This Case.
This issue affects all who are reporting news, all citizen journalists, all victims of corruption at every level and all whistleblowers.
If a Ninth Circuit panel can rule that any individual has committed crimes without that person having been investigated or given due process for those allegations, and use a New York Times article as evidence of those crimes, then this potentially affects every citizen in the United States and is a very important issue for all lawmakers, citizens, and the judicial process as a whole.
The Court should grant the petition. "
Source of Crystal Cox Blogger Supreme Court Filing
Blogger Crystal Cox filed to the Supreme Court Pro Se
Here is a Video of Crystal Cox regarding her
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkYW7nl4774
Here is the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari that Blogger Crystal Cox filed to
the United States Supreme Court to Stand up for the rights of all Bloggers,
Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers
Start a Blog, Expose Corruption.
Report the NEWS in your Area.
YOU are the NEWS !!!
YOU are the MEDIA !!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)