Great Lakes Law - Environmental Civil And Constitutional Rights

Fort Sheridan Appeal

2007-03-04T16:27:00Z

On May 12, 2006 I filed a citizen suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, and Cleanup Liability Act (CERCLA) against the Army and Navy for violations of mandatory duties at Fort Sheridan. see www.landfill7.com

Specifically, the defendants violated a provision that requires all remedial action be complete prior to transferring contaminated federal property. Without having finished the cleanup they have transferred the property and are redeveloping it. [CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)]

On September 11, 2006 the government filed a motion to dismiss my suit as premature because another provision of CERCLA bars federal court jurisdiction to hear challenges to remedial decision while the cleanup is ongoing. [CERCLA Section 113(h)]

I argued that my challenge was not a premature challenge to the remedial decision but rather a challenge to the premature transfer. The government argued that a challenge to the transfer was effectively the same as a challenge to the cleanup. On December 15, 2006 Federal Judge Manning agreed with the government defendants and dismissed my case.

I filed a notice of appeal and have now filed my appellate brief to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The government's Response is due March 20, 2007.

There are three ways to keep up to date on my case against the Army and Navy.

Read this blog for periodic updates on all my citizen suit activities
Go to my Fort Sheridan Landfill 7 site: http://landfill7.com/fortweb/FortNews.htm
Join our new environmental group, the Blue Eco Legal Council: http://www.ecoesq.com

If you choose the third option and join Blue Eco, you will receive our e-newsletter. By joining, we will be litigating lapses in environmental enforcement in your name as a member. Membership is free.

Does The U.S. Coast Guard Adequately State The Risk

2006-09-26T14:06:00Z

So I am getting ready to comment on the proposed plan to conduct live fire exercises and started doing research into the Coast Guard's proposed plan.

Represent Your Children's Best Interest, Go To Jail?

2006-09-25T00:23:00Z

As the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US) blog explains, the government is asking the Court to clarify whether parents can proceed in court pro se, i.e. without representation, when enforcing their children's rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Various Bar associations have argued that this represents the unauthorized practice of law.

If the parents are being accused of the unauthorized practice of law, however, then the Bar associations must be assuming they are bringing the case on behalf of their children.

Isn't it more accurate to state that the children are the party proceeding in court pro se with their parents standing in as guardians? After all, it is the children whose rights are at issue, not the parents. The parents are not representing the children as attorneys but rather as parents.

Also, the Supreme Court has in the past denied attorney parents attorney fees after successfully representing their children, arguing that attorney fee provisions are only for third party representation. If the attorney parent is not representing their children as an attorney when asking for fees, then the attorney parent is really only representing the child as a parent. So the non-attorney parent should not be penalized for proceeding in court to enforce their childrens rights either.

This is just a case of misguided industry self-protection. It assumes that everyone with rights to protect by use of the court system can afford third party representation. By criminalizing the act of self-representation, the Bar associations force an unsavory choice on the poor, forego rights afforded under the law, or break the law to protect their children.

Parents are not separate from their children who are the party. The family walks into court as a single unit pro se.

What Exactly Is The U.S. Coast Guard Protecting?

2006-09-24T16:03:00Z

The U.S. Coast Guard plans to begin live fire exercises in the Great Lakes. In the process, hundreds of pounds of toxic lead will be deposited into each of the Great Lakes. Most businesses would be prohibited from such release of toxic lead into the environment but the Coast Guard hopes to avoid this prohibition by framing the new program as the creation of safety zones for the exercises, not the creation of the exercises themselves.

The U.S. Coast Guard has announced an extension of the rulemaking comment period for the proposed safety zone carve out in the Great Lakes for live fire exercises.

The Federal Register notice is: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/e
docket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-12332.pdf

This proposed rule is very misleading in that it frames the issue as the creation of safety zones rather than the creation of live fire exercises (which would naturally require safety zones).

By defining it this way there is obviously no environmental impact to consider from the firing of small arms and larger artillery in the Great Lakes. In other words, the proposed rule, creating safety zones, does not impact the Great Lakes ecosystem whereas the live fire exercise does have such an impact.

If the rule was framed as what it truly represents, the filling of the Great Lakes with lead containing ordinance, and possibly TNT and RDX containing artillery, then there would be an environmental impact to consider(and comment on).

This was a very tricky method for the Coast Guard to take on this issue. It does not put the impacted stakeholders on notice that the rule will affect them.

Our organization will be commenting on this misdirection and also the environmental requirements being ignored under NEPA, RCRA, CERCLA (future cleanup of current contamination), CWA, and the inconsistency with prior Great Lakes cleanup decisions such as the preliminary assessment and site investigation of artillery at Fort Sheridan under CERCLA, and the Chicago Gun Club Area of Concern near Chicago.

www.BlueEco.org