Thursday, December 18, 2014

Port Townsend Paper, Mineral Technologies Looks Like YOU will be Paying a HUGE Tax for Poisoning US. Paying to POLLUTE.

"I had the opportunity to talk with then Congressman Jay Inslee at length at Netroots Nation 2009 in Pittsburgh. We spent most of that time talking about transitioning to sustainable energy.  He coauthored a book about that very subject and named Apollo's Fire.  I read Inslee's book.  Jay Inslee gets it like few other politicians in this country do.
Today as Governor Inslee proposed a Carbon Charge assessing the state's largest GHG emitters when they exceed set emissions levels to help pay for transportation infrastructure projects, in a time when gas taxes are diminishing due to more efficient vehicles and other factors.
Inslee: Make big polluters pay for transportation projects
By Mike Lindblom
After two years of watching gas-tax increases tank in the Legislature, Gov. Jay Inslee proposed Tuesday to take a new approach: Charge major polluters for the right to emit carbon.
Inslee’s plan, featuring a “cap-and-trade” system, would generate $400 million a year, he said, to cover nearly 40 percent of his $12 billion, 12-year transportation improvement plan. The remainder would come from bond debt, existing gas taxes, tolls and an assortment of vehicle fees.
“We can clean our air and water at the same time we are fixing our air and our roads,” Inslee said in Medina, overlooking the 520 construction site. “It is indeed a twofer.”
Inslee, who is spending the week rolling out his budget wish list, is expected to announce further details about his Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, with his full budget proposal to come Thursday.
What the Democratic governor did make clear Tuesday is that in the face of Republican gains in the Legislature, he is holding fast to his idea that climate-change legislation can pay for much of government’s costs.
The governor said he aims to reach across the so-called Cascade Curtain and connect all of Washington through a “bipartisan spirit” that aims to “reduce the hours we spend on the roads away from our families.”
This program would send energy consumers all the signals to help more toward a more sustainable energy system for the state of Washington.
Taxing carbon is a more in the right direction. Last year Republicans blocked passage of a bill with proposed transportation infrastructure projects."

Source
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/17/1352606/-Washington-Governor-Jay-Inslee-proposes-a-Carbon-Charge-for-big-polluters#

Port Townsend Paper Mill, Mineral Technologies, will most Likely be buying a few Bridges in Washington State along with lots of other projects paid for as they are one of Washington States BIGGEST Polluters and they are Jefferson County Washington's BIGGEST industrial polluter.

 Washington's Governor Calling for Clean Air and Clean Water. WOW



What will the Port Townsend Paper Mill, Minerals Technology (MTX) do?

Well if the TRUTH is told and their POLLUTION in our air, soil and water is not covered up by the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, the Port Townsend Leader, the Washington EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology WELL then they will buying a multi-billion dollar floating bridge for the State of Washington.

However, for now they seem to be getting away with the LIE thanks to Jefferson County Commissioners, the Port Townsend Leader, one or more insiders at the EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Port Townsend.



"Inslee to lay out ideas for cap-and-trade, carbon tax"
http://crosscut.com/2014/07/28/washington-governor/121225/inslee-set-lay-out-ideas-climate-change-cap-and-tr/
Linked Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Tax
http://governor.wa.gov/issues/climate/documents/20140729_CERT_MeetingMaterials.pdf


Washington Gov. Proposes Major Carbon Tax To Fund Pressing Transportation Needs

"Inslee hopes to fund the $12 billion plan with bonds, fees and a carbon charge on the state's industrial polluters. The market-based carbon pollution charge will generate $7 billion over 12 years, he said. The fee will generate the equivalent of a 12 cent gas tax without hurting consumers, he said."

"All of this can be done with "a new and bold idea that will breathe new life" into the state - the polluter's fee, he said.

"We can clean our air and water at the same time we are fixing our air and our roads," he said. "It is indeed a two-for."

Source and Full Article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/washington-carbon-tax_n_6337242.html


Enforce the LAW. 

Tax PT Paper Heavily. 

Force them to OBEY the LAW. 

Sue them, file criminal charges where it applies. As Governor Inslee said last night on the News, Clean Air is the LAW. Not just the right thing to do. It is the LAW.

The Port Townsend Paper Mill is Clearly Violating Washington Laws on Carbon aren't they? And they sure seem to be violating the clean air act and Jefferson County seems to be aiding and abetting this. Rumor has it that one of the County Commissioners is paid in an untraceable account to defend them at all county events, law making sessions and basically to aid and abet.

I say file complaints, lawsuits and even criminal complaints against Port Townsend Paper, Dale Stahl, Roger Hagan, AMCOL, and Minerals Technology Inc.

Port Townsend Paper is NOT above the LAW
Expose all people who are aiding and abetting them to 
BREAK THE LAW.

File Charges against ALL acting in conspiracy 
to Obstruct Justice.


WASHINGTON CLEAN AIR ACT


Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act




More information at 

You have a Legal Right to Clean Air

(MTX) According to the Washington's Governor our "right" to Clean Air, is LAW. "the state’s major polluters" YA YOU Port Townsend Paper. You are going to PAY for all the Roads and Bridges in Washington. The EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology, as well as your "Commissioner" and local Paper all covering for you, well those days are soon to end. The TRUTH will SOON replace the LIE. And clean air will replace the Toxic Air you are serving us up.

Our Washington Governor Said it is the LAW that we have Clean Air

"Gov. Inslee Wants To Cap And Tax Emissions From Washington State’s Major Polluters"
"Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has big plans for carbon reductions in his state, as outlined in climate change and transportation proposals announced by the governor’s office this week.

On Tuesday, Inslee announced a proposed tax on the carbon emissions for Washington’s major polluters. The proposal, which is part of Inslee’s transportation plan, would force major polluters in the state’s oil and gas industry to pay for the carbon they emit. The revenue gathered from the carbon tax, according to Inslee’s office, would total about $4.8 billion over the next 12 years — about the same amount as would be raised by a 12-cent increase in the state’s gas tax."

"As part of the plan, the state’s major polluters — the “relatively small number of businesses” that, according to the governor’s office, are responsible for 85 percent of the state’s emissions — would have their emissions capped. Over time, that cap will be lowered, as a way to prod the businesses to transition to cleaner, more efficient energy sources."

"“I believe it’s our destiny to lead in clean energy. Washington may be less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the world’s population, but we’re number one in the world in software, in aerospace, in apples, in online retailing,” Inslee said in a statement Wednesday. “We can choose cleaner air, more efficient cars and a better transportation system. We can choose energy independence. We have a choice in our future, and we’re choosing to take action.”

These proposals aren’t yet a done deal: they’ll be introduced to the state’s legislature in 2015. But if they are approved, they would serve as a step toward Washington’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The proposals follow a April 2014 executive order by Gov. Inslee to reduce the state’s carbon emissions and increase its use of renewable energy."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/17/3604669/inslee-washington-state-tax-cap-emissions/


A Governor Hell Bent on Clean Air Rights; WOW
BAD News for Mineral Technologies Inc. (MTX)

Executive Orders, Law, Tax; How will Port Townsend Paper and Mineral Technologies stay in business? Well they will lie and the Washington Dept. of Ecology insider(s) will cover for them as well as the Washington EPA and the Port Townsend Commissioners. Oh and the Port Townsend Leader will report on the LIE as if it were the TRUTH and WaLa Magic Happens and you breath poison, get sick and are forced to leave Port Townsend.

Port Townsend Paper, AMCOL, Mineral Technology's paper plant in the state of Washington emits 1.6 times as much CO2 as ALL other sources in Jefferson County Washington. 

Make sure that this is reported often. They will most likely pay for all the roads and bridges in the state as clearly they are a HUGE offender.

"Port Townsend Paper= 611,864 tons per year of CO2e"
Source
http://ptairwatchers.org/2014/10/06/pt-paper-emits-1-6-times-as-much-co2-as-all-other-sources-in-jeffco-wa/

Those who work at the mill now can still work there another 20 years in clean up for good pay. So time to Shut Down the Toxic Air Factory and start the cleanup.

More at
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/245153762294452

http://rogerhaganporttownsendpaper.blogspot.com/

http://ptairwatchers.org/

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

"The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment."

NOW as a Matter of Law and Case Precedence, Due to the Crystal Cox Case ALL Bloggers are Legally Protected to Break the News and Report the News just as any main stream, institutional press Journalist, no matter who they work for.


"JOURNALIST OR BLOGGER: PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR NOT"

by Thomas Halek

"The opinions of the courts decide whether a blogger is a journalist and afforded the rights provided under the First Amendment.

DEFINITION OF A JOURNALIST

Dr. Anthony Curtis, Mass Communication Dept., University of North Carolina at Pembroke, in an article titled What is Journalism said, “Journalism is the practice of investigating and reporting events, issues and trends to the mass audiences of print, broadcast and online media such as newspapers, magazines and books, radio and television stations and networks, and blogs and social and mobile media.”

"IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS

How the courts have ruled on whether a blogger is a journalist and protected by the First Amendment has varied. In a paper titled, The Future of Online Legal Journalism, written by Christopher J. Davey, the Director of Public Information for the Supreme Court of Ohio, said, “The court speaks only through their opinions.” In the paper, Davey describes how the legal system’s view of on-line journalism has grown and changed since 1964 and the consequences because of it.

OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX

On Mashable.com a headline reads, “Judge Hits Blogger With $2.5 Million Charge for Not Being a Journalist.” The case is OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP v. CRYSTAL COX. In The Atlantic, Robinson Meyer published an article U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists. In the article, Meyer describes the case and the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit ruling.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned the District Court’s ruling and declared that Cox was a journalist and therefore protected by the freedom of speech laws and the First Amendment.

EMERITUS PROFESSOR JAMES PIELEMEIER INTERVIEW

Emeritus Professor James Pielemeier, a retired law professor from Hamline University, in an interview said, “It did seem to me that there was a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in some areas, such as statutory Reporter’s Privileges (e.g. about confidential sources), at least if the statutory language arguably permitted such a result.” Pielemeier also said, “In general, there seemed to be a trend towards treating bloggers like journalists in other areas of first amendment law.”

Source and Full Article; Check it Out.
http://www.thomashalek.com/?page_id=419

More
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/


A MAJOR Federal Victory by Blogger Crystal Cox paves the way for ALL Bloggers to Be Protected in a Court of Law to REPORT the "NEWS".

"In contrast, media resides in a legal framework that is deeply valued and protected. Since before theFirst Amendment of the Constitution was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, America stood out for its high tolerance of free speech and legal protection of the press. 

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie in 1786. 

Liberty was to be more valued than the dangers of defamation, a lesson that President Jefferson would learn for himself when mud began to be slung his way.

James Madison, 1st Amendment advocate/Wikipedia
That freedom and its supporting structures have become the air we breathe, ingrained institutionally and psychologically with the public and legally within our country's basic body of law.
Bloggers and website hosts can be thankful for their extensive protection from defamation lawsuits, like the attempts by former franchisor Mark Golob and personal injury attorney Nikolaus Reed, to two seismic events that have moved America farther down the road and further away from other countries in what it means to have a free press—New York Times Co. v. Sullivan andSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Newspapers had been weighed down by libel lawsuits from southern states that had a chilling effect on journalists reporting about civil rights violators. 
They acted as a news deterrent because the press feared that they would incur a defamation lawsuit by those cast in an unflattering light. The 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed all that. According to Justice William Brennan in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling ofNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to provide that "debate on public issues ... [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." It created a "malice standard." It didn't matter if a journalist made errors in reporting. 
What mattered was if a report was reckless in its disregard of truth because of malice, which is difficult to prove.
The Civil Rights movement, Vietnam and then Watergate all eroded the public's faith in government and eventually corporate institutions. Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG and Lehman Brothers only accelerated that distrust. 
For the sake of more open discussion and transparency, the public and the laws have greatly increased in toleration of attacks on reputations.
Then came Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Online host intermediaries like social media's Blue MauMau, Twitter, Facebook, Blogspot, UnhappyFranchisee or Yelp are not held liable for the writings and speech posted by others on their sites.
"I think Section 230 is the Internet equivalent of New York Times v Sullivan," says attorney Paul Steinberg. In essence, host providers of public forums are not liable for what people post on their site. "That fundamentally changed the game." Steinberg argues that social media couldn't exist without the legal protections of Section 230.
The win in the Superior Court of Mendocino County, California, by Sean Kelly comes just a few months after a major federal victory by another blogger."

Source and Full Article

For More

Bloggers all over the US are Rejoicing at the Ground Breaking Decision in the Crystal Cox Case. Now ALL Bloggers have Equal rights to REPORT the News and Break the NEWS. Equal to any mainstream Journalist or Reporter.

"On January 17, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court issued its decision giving Cox the same protection as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the decision was based in part on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Court wrote, in part:
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”

Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.
Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.

The decision is short, so we are including it below the fold."

Source and Full Document
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2014/01/19/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/

For More
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Monday, December 15, 2014

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers On Jan. 17, 2014; This is the "First Ruling" Granting this Protection to BLOGGERS.

"First RULING to Grant Protection to Bloggers."

"Bloggers achieved a significant victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on Jan. 17, 2014 that First Amendment protections in defamation lawsuits extend to bloggers. 

In April 2014, a Florida appellate court held that bloggers were entitled to pre-suit notices for defamation suits under Florida law.

 Although the victories are welcome news to online content producers everywhere, the jailing of an Alabama blogger has raised questions and concerns among free speech advocates. 

Online speakers may still have obstacles to overcome before courts fully recognize that First Amendment protections apply to them.

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers On Jan. 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that bloggers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media in defamation lawsuits. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014).

......
The district court held that only one blog post could be interpreted as containing a statement of fact, and could proceed to trial. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011). 


The remaining blog posts were considered constitutionally protected opinions because they did not contain provable statements of fact. Cox also claimed protection under Oregon’s journalist’s shield law, but District Judge Marco A. Hernandez held that she did not meet the definitions of who can receive protection as laid out by the state statute. (For more information on Cox’s shield law claims, see “Defamation Lawsuits Pose Threat to Journalists as Online Communication Complicates First Amendment Analysis” in the Spring 2012 issue of the Silha Bulletin).

Cox also made First Amendment arguments that the liability standards should be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff needs to show only negligence to recover actual damages from a media defendant.

But a plaintiff can only recover presumed or punitive damages upon a showing that a media defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Cox argued that, under Gertz, Padrick and Obsidian carried the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover actual damages for defamation.

Cox also argued that Padrick and Obsidian must show that she acted with actual malice to receive presumed damages. Judge Hernandez dismissed these arguments, stating that Cox had not proven that she was a journalist. Therefore, the protections of Gertz did not apply to her.

....

At the conclusion of the trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Padrick and Obsidian. Cox moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. Cox then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had ruled incorrectly on the liability standards and Padrick’s and Obsidian’s public figure status. Padrick and Obsidian filed a cross-appeal contending that the jury should have considered their defamation claims relating to the other blog posts.

In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s judgment against Cox. The court held that Gertz’s liability rules were not limited only to situations that involved traditional media defendants. The opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Gertz standard applied to others besides institutional media, the Court’s language in the opinion also did not limit the ruling to institutional media alone. 


Hurwitz wrote, “[the Supreme Court] has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” citing several cases in which the high court declined to create a distinction between members of the press and the general public.

As a result, the court agreed with other circuits that “the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.” The court also noted that trying to create a distinction between institutional media and other communicators was very difficult. 

Therefore, the court said that the key First Amendment factor under Gertz in defamation cases was not the identity of the speaker. Rather, “the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue” are the key First Amendment considerations. Through this rationale, Cox, as a blogger, was entitled to the same liability standards that traditional forms of media received under the First Amendment.

In addition to determining that Sullivan and Gertz protections apply to the general public, the appeals court also rejected the argument that Gertz was limited to defamation cases involving matters of public concern. Hurwitz wrote that even if Gertz was limited to such a situation, Cox’s blog posts concerned public matters qualifying for protection.  ....

Several First Amendment advocates and advocacy organizations praised the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox during the appeals process, told Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard for a Jan. 17, 2014 article that the decision “makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.” 

Volokh also noted that the decision followed similar court rulings that granted First Amendment protections to other writers and book authors,although this ruling appeared to be the first to grant protection to bloggers. 

In the same article, Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said the ruling confirmed the fact that Gertz was “not a special right to the news media.” Rather, it applied to everyone. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others,” Leslie said."

Source and Full Article
http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html

More at
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/