Bradenton Herald Tribune re: Governor Richard Scott, AG Pamela Bondi, Not Joining Other States in Suing Transocean for BP Disaster

Scott and Bondi opt out of BP spill lawsuit

By Lloyd Dunkelberger
H-T Capital Bureau

Published: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 6:22 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 6:22 p.m.

TALLAHASSEE - Facing a deadline today, Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday rejected a chance to join a federal lawsuit in Louisiana, where other governments are seeking to recoup damages from the oil rig owner involved in last year's catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Scott and Bondi said not joining the lawsuit against Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig operated by BP, would not preclude the state from reimbursement for damages caused by last year's ecological disaster.

The spill led to a steep decline in Florida's tourism economy, particularly in the Panhandle.

Florida officials will continue to seek reimbursement by filing a claim with BP through the federal Oil Pollution Act. Such a claim could also be made against Transocean, they said. If the claims don't satisfy the state, a lawsuit could be filed later, they said.

"It doesn't make sense for the state to join that lawsuit," Scott said. "We have a plan to make sure our state is treated fairly with regard to getting reimbursed by British Petroleum for the damages to our state."

Bondi said state officials are talking with BP representatives about a compensation figure acceptable to all parties. Right now, those talks remain productive, she said.

"It's our responsibility to get as much money for them as quickly as we can," Bondi told the News Service of Florida before a scheduled meeting of the state Cabinet in Panama City. "The Transocean deadline does not affect us, nor will it affect us if we eventually choose to enter litigation.

"Right now, we're attempting to reach a settlement," Bondi said. "What we would do if we did go to litigation, would be to go through the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 before engaging in litigation."

The decision by Scott and Bondi, both Republicans, drew criticism from Democrats, who said Florida could have joined the Transocean lawsuit with little cost to the state while preserving the state's right to make a monetary claim against the company.

They noted that several other governments have joined the lawsuit, scheduled to be tried next year in federal court in New Orleans, including the state of Alabama, the city of Pensacola and the Leon County School Board.

"It boggles the mind," said Rep. Rick Kriseman, D-St. Petersburg, who is a lawyer. "By not filing a claim, potentially what happens, the state loses its rights to pursue a claim against Transocean."

While conceding the state could make a claim against Transocean under the OPA, Kriseman said joining the Transocean lawsuit now may have provided a quicker avenue for winning compensation for the state.

"If you're the state of Florida and you've got residents and businesses throughout the state that have sustained significant losses why wouldn't you do everything in your power to maximize the recovery?" Kriseman asked.

Carlos Muniz, an assistant attorney general in Bondi's office, said that filing a claim with BP was the "best" and "fastest" way to get compensation for the state.

He also said that Florida must file a claim with BP before it can file a lawsuit under the terms of the Oil Pollution Act.

"It's not a matter of choice, it's not a preference, it is actually a legal requirement," Muniz said.

He also said the April 20 deadline regarding a lawsuit with Transocean would not apply to that claim.

"After tomorrow passes, Florida will still have all of its rights against BP," Muniz said.

Muniz said state officials are still gathering information on the impact of the spill before making a claim, including assessing how the beach communities are doing this year.

While the state continues to pursue its recovery, individuals and private businesses continue their own process for reimbursement for lost income under the direction of the BP Gulf Coast Claims Facility, run by Federal Claims Administrator Ken Feinberg. As of Monday, the group has paid out about $3.8 billion to 176,000 claimants region-wide.

Capital correspondent Gary Fineout contributed to this report and information from the News Service of Florida was used in this story

Associated Press re: BP Trying to Buy Friends in Florida Panhandle Before Criminal Indictments Are Handed Up for Deepwater Horizon Disaster

BP money buys sports towels, Christmas lights, jingles in Florida Panhandle

Published: Thursday, December 29, 2011, 1:00 PM Updated: Thursday, December 29, 2011, 3:32 PM

By The Associated Press

Sports towels and fleece blankets. A poker tournament. A $1 million Christmas display. A prom for senior citizens. BP gas card giveaways. A "most deserving mom" contest. And advertising, lots of advertising.

Florida Panhandle officials made the mix of eyebrow-raising purchases with $30 million BP gave them earlier this year to help tourism recover from 2010's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The money allowed seven area tourism bureaus to try promotions they could never have afforded otherwise, and it has propelled the Panhandle's visitor counts to record numbers this year following a disastrous season right after the spill. The question now is what happens when the BP money dries up, most likely next April. The grants doubled and tripled the tourism-promotion budgets in these Panhandle counties, and officials worry the boost in visitors may prove fleeting.

"It is one thing to have your numbers go up when a tremendous amount of money is being put, not only in our economy, but in all of north Florida," said Curt Blair, executive director of the Franklin County Tourist Development Council. "We will see after April whether part of this was a real recovery ... or if we see fall-off. ... Whether we've done that or if we've just propped up the market."

BP announced the $30 million tourism grants in April. While the agreement for the $30 million doesn't prevent Florida from pursuing any claims against BP or others, officials there decided a week later not to join other Gulf states in a lawsuit against Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig at the heart of the spill.

Florida's tourism spending spree isn't the first time that BP money has allowed government officials to snag items from their wish lists.

Separately, BP had already poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the four Gulf states in the months after the oil spill -- with few strings attached. The Associated Press documented earlier this year how some of the $754 million given to local governments had been spent on tasers, SUVS and pick-up trucks, rock concerts, an iPad and other items with no direct connection to the oil spill.

In all, BP has given $150 million to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi for tourism promotion since the oil spill, with the Sunshine State getting the lion's share -- $62 million.

In the case of the more-recent payout, Florida Panhandle counties have allocated more than $23 million of the $30 million through September, with $13.5 million used on for television, digital, radio and print advertising. The counties have also spent millions on a variety of attention-grabbing gimmicks, The Associated Press found through public records requests and interviews.

Some wonder whether the most extravagant promotions -- such as Panama City Beach's $1 million Christmas display -- are worth it.

"It wasn't all that busy out here last weekend," Charles Walsingham, a beachside merchant near the display, said a few days after the Christmas lights were turned on and the ice rink opened in early December. "There weren't that many people over there skating and that is a lot of money to spend."

The seven counties spent $2.5 million on promotions alone.

In Pensacola, the BP money paid for $30,000 worth of sports towels and another $30,000 worth of fleece blankets given out at local sporting events. In neighboring Perdido Key, officials spent $300,000 on American Express gift cards for overnight visitors. They also purchased $12,500 worth of BP gas cards for tourists who present receipts showing they've stayed in the area, essentially putting BP funds back into the company's pocket.

Alison Davenport, chair of the Perdido Key Chamber and Visitors Center, said the goal is to get tourists driving to the area next spring. "We had no hesitation in choosing BP gas cards over any others since BP's grant money has made the incentivized travel promotion possible," she said.

Okaloosa County, home to Destin and Fort Walton Beach, is giving away a trip to the Super Bowl and tickets to the BCS championship football game to drive traffic to its Facebook page. South Walton Beach also is giving away BCS tickets on Facebook.

Okaloosa County spent a half million dollars marketing and advertising Vision Airlines, which this year launched service from the Northwest Florida Regional Airport to several Southeast cities.

The grants have funded a half-dozen fishing tournaments, a poker tournament, a national flag football championship and a soccer tournament.

It has paid for contests galore.

Carol Daley, of Arlington, Texas, won a "Search for America's Most Deserving Mom" contest from Okaloosa County. Her prizes were a one-week stay in Destin, roundtrip airfare, $1,000 for a spending spree and a 2011 Buick Enclave valued at more than $36,000. Ashley Spencer won a beach photo contest from South Walton Beach that netted her a $15,000 vacation. Franklin County officials sprinkled the area with clues and sponsored a GPS-aided treasure hunt.

A $166,000 Panama City Beach program includes a prom next month for senior citizens. The couple chosen prom king and queen from online submissions will get to invite two friends for a weekend at the beach.

"We think getting these people to talk about why their friends should be queen and king will really help get this viral, talking about Panama City Beach as a fun beach destination," said Dan Rowe, executive director of the Panama City Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau.

The BP funding paid for almost 20 different festivals.

Santa Rosa County spent $80,000 on a sand-sculpting festival. The money is paying for the Pensacola area's $120,000 Mardi Gras celebration next year, its $25,000 New Year's celebration and a $540,000 music festival. Panama City Beach used the money for a $100,000 pirate-themed festival, a $1.3 million country music festival and a $425,000 Christian music festival.

Panama City Beach's Christmas display includes the ice rink, a candy cane forest and an enormous lights display.

"I think it's a great idea," said Michael Chers, a visitor from Omaha. "People love it."

The BP money was more than tripled the tourism promotion funds normally spent by officials in Okaloosa County. It was double the regular $750,000 budget for tourism officials in Franklin County, home to Apalachicola. The $7 million Bay County got is more than double its normal $3 million budget.

"We wouldn't have been able to do two-thirds of what we did without that BP grant," said Mark Bellinger, executive director of the Okaloosa County Tourist Development Council. "We just never had the money in the past for television ads."

Tourists stayed away through much of the summer of 2010 after clumps of gooey tar washed ashore during the spill. Pensacola Beach got a got a heavy coating of gunk for a day or two, but beach towns further east saw mostly smaller tar balls. Tourism experts say the area's image suffered from months of news footage of oiled beaches.

Visitors came back in droves, though, in 2011. Okaloosa County had its best-ever June, July and September. In many counties, tourism is up as much as 20 percent over last year.

"It appears the ... efforts have been successful," said BP spokesman Craig Savage. "The campaigns, plus pent-up consumer demand have made 2011 a banner year for tourism in the Panhandle."

Apart from the advertising the Panhandle tourism bureaus have purchased, BP is launching a new national television advertising campaign this week to outline Gulf cleanup efforts.

Florida State University professor Mark Bonn isn't sure negative perceptions about the Panhandle will vanish so quickly, especially the further away the prospective visitor lives.

"I think it's going to be a five-year minimal process before people are convinced that everything is OK," said Bonn, a professor of service management. "I think it takes people time to adjust to situations."

Melissa Nelson and Mike Schneider of The Associated Press wrote this report. Schneider reported from Orlando, Fla.

Quotations from Nattering Nabobs of Negativism, From Bloomberg Business Week

Two of our favorites from rinkworks.com: “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” —Western Union internal memo, 1876.

And “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” —David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

Check out Michigan Law Review article on BP environmental crimes by Professor Ulhman, Former Environmental Prosecutor

Click green link above!

IN HAEC VERBA: 2008 St. Augustine Record column on Environmental Justice

Persistence of citizens prevails in dumping order
ED SLAVIN
St. Augustine
Published Sunday, May 25, 2008

I am proud to live in our Nation's Oldest (European-founded) City because of our citizens' character and diversity. Thanks to you, on May 12, City Commissioners unanimously approved a consent decree with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): It guarantees that solid waste illegally dumped in our Old City Reservoir will be disposed of properly in a Class I landfill -- it will not be returned to our historic African-American community of Lincolnville. Commissioners unanimously voted Nov. 13 to support Commissioner Errol Jones' ill-advised motion to send waste back to Lincolnville.

On May 12, commissioners heard and heeded hundreds who turned out at the St. Paul's A.M.E. Church on Dec. 13 and January 10, supporting the seven community activists who asked FDEP to stop Lincolnville dumping (Judith and Anthony Seraphin, Diane and Gerald Mills, Dr. Dwight Hines, David Thundershield Queen and me).

The people have won yet another round against City Hall. Your victory bodes well for what our community can do to observe 11,000 years of history (450th anniversary of St. Augustine and 500th anniversary of Spanish Florida).

As Dana Ste. Claire rightly urged, we must celebrate diversity. We need a St. Augustine National Historical Park, National Seashore and National Scenic Coastal Highway, about which County Commissioners may schedule a straw ballot vote.

I agree with former Mayor George Gardner, who rightly blasted the lack of energy and creativity in our city's Heritage Tourism Department.

Our City Hall needs a clean sweep.

Anthropologist Margaret Mead said it best, "A city is a place where there is no need to wait for next week to get the answer to a question, to taste the food of any country, to find new voices to listen to and familiar ones to listen to again."

Mead also said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead visited Oak Ridge, Tenn., and exposed its provincialism, not knowing secrecy perpetrated a massive environmental crime.

Twenty-five years ago, on May 17, 1983, our small weekly newspaper (Appalachian Observer) won declassification of the largest mercury pollution event in world history. Our federal government in Oak Ridge, emitted 4.2 million pounds of mercury into creeks, groundwater and workers' lungs and brains -- more than was dumped in Minimata, Japan.

Oak Ridge's pollution scandal started scrutiny of the entire U.S. nuclear weapons complex -- a cleanup still ongoing.

Then-Rep. Al Gore held an investigative hearing in Oak Ridge on July 11, 1983, swearing in witnesses (a nuclear complex first). I called for criminal prosecution of mercury-dumping Union Carbide and Department of Energy officials.

For decades, Oak Ridge residents were afraid to speak out. As a result, government environmental crimes were never punished.

Contrast that with the free, independent spirit of today's St. Augustinians, who swiftly achieved significant results against one of the worst abuses of power anywhere.

Like Oak Ridge's mindless, maniacal mercury-dumpers, St. Augustine's city manager was never reprimanded for dumping solid waste in the Old City Reservoir -- William Harriss got a pass (and a plaque) in the midst of a pending criminal investigation.

Unanswered questions remain 27 months after St. Augustine dumping was reported. Other local dumps await investigation/cleanup. (To report pollution, call the National Response Center, 1-800-424-8802). The illegal city dump at the south end of Riberia Street awaits a consent decree and cleanup. Our search for truth continues.

With your help and prayers, our city will become a much better place for all of our citizens.

As we sang at St. Paul's on Jan. 10, "we shall overcome."

Ed Slavin earned a degree in diplomacy from Georgetown University and a law degree from Memphis State University; he was recommended for a Pulitzer Prize by Oak Ridge District Attorney Jim Ramsey in 1983.

Columbia Journalism Review on difficulty of covering environmental crimes stories (like BP)

The Observatory

The Observatory, Transparency — October 28, 2011 02:00 PM

Cracking the Case

Why is it so difficult to cover investigations of environmental crimes?

By Curtis Brainard

The federal civil and criminal investigations of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continue to be a source of frustration for the press, not in and of themselves, but rather because they thwart reporters’ access to certain information and data.

At the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Miami last week, the issue came up during multiple panels and in hallway conversations. Asked about journalists’ complaints about a lack of government transparency, Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, cited the ongoing investigations as reasons that her office can’t discuss certain aspects of the Gulf spill:

I think there’s a lot of confusion about what we know and what we’re able to talk about with respect to the impact of Deepwater Horizon as it relates to the legal case under the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Process and I think this is worth describing because there’s a huge amount confusion about it.

The federal government is in the process of building a case against the responsible parties to take them to court and get the most damages recovered to do the restoration that’s needed. Part of building that court case is to assemble information, but typically in a court case you don’t tell the person on the other side of the case what you know because that tips your hand and lessens the likelihood that your case will be successful.

Walter Cruickshank, the deputy director of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), which replaced the Minerals Management Service in the wake of the spill, cited the investigations while parrying a question about whether or not the government should have approved, in the last two weeks, BP’s plans to drill up to four exploratory wells in the Gulf of Mexico and to bid on new oil leases in the Gulf in a December auction:

As of this time, BP is still legally qualified to hold a lease and to be an operator. You’re right, there are ongoing investigations. There are ongoing legal processes. I’m not going to guess how those turn out, but I think that both in the work we’ve seen in that exploration plan and in the work that BP has done over the past many months, that there’s certainly a strong effort on their part to perform better in the future than they have in the past.

The restrictions on sharing information that could be used in civil and criminal litigation are, in theory, logical and important, but the government often applies them unevenly, and perhaps unfairly. Mark Schrope, a freelance science writer and editor who is writing a book about the Gulf oil spill, said he contacted BOEMRE last May to request an interview related to the final capping of the Macondo well and the debate over whether or not to leave it capped. A public affairs officer declined his request, saying that with the ongoing investigation, the bureau’s staff was “not able to participate in media interviews at this time.” But the US Geological Survey (USGS) readily granted an interview with a scientist involved in the same events.

“There is some important context here,” Schrope said. “Since USGS is not a regulatory agency, they don’t face the same constraints. And because BOEMRE was so under fire because of questions about their drilling oversight, it’s easy to see why they would be very cautious about speaking publicly, or even clam up as they did with me. However, their message suggests that talking would somehow compromise the litigation, and if that were the case then the same should be true for USGS. So, it seems clear that they were/are hiding behind that to avoid participating in public discussion. Again, I understand the motivation for that, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a healthy policy.”

Such inconsistencies notwithstanding, journalists do have to respect the investigative process when the authorities are making an honest and concerted effort to catch the bad guys. During a panel dedicated to the topic of the enforcement of environmental laws, I asked Mike Fisher, the acting deputy director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, about ways that the press can dig into, and shed light upon, ongoing investigations.

“The way to best address the issue, from my perspective as somebody working inside the criminal justice system, is not the way you sometimes see on cop shows, where you’ve got a detective who’s kind of slipping information to somebody who writes the story,” he said, “but rather for you all, and for us, to explain what portions of the process are public information.”

Fisher went on to explain that grand jury proceedings are, by law, kept secret and those who provide grand jury information to the press can be prosecuted. Once charges are filed, however, they are public information. “And more often than not,” he said, “the Department of Justice prosecutors we work with file what’s called a speaking indictment that tells you more than just, ‘the government alleges that XYZ Company committed this particular offense under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.’ It tells the story of the criminal conduct and then it has the allegation at the end of that document.” In addition, search warrant affidavits are almost always available to reporters.

“So there are places in this process, even before trial, for the media to get access to public information,” Fisher said. “But we, especially the prosecutors, are always going to be concerned about preserving the defendant’s ability to get a fair trial, and lawyers are subject, both at EPA and DOJ, to bar ethics obligations that tell us things ought to be tried in courts and not in the press. That’s a very proper constraint on us.”

Jerry Phillips, the director of the Florida chapter of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), said that to ferret out information about ongoing investigations, it helps “to be a geek.” He recommended perusing the Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports issued by state agencies for pollution violations, paying particular attention to facilities that wind up on the Significant Non-Compliance (the term used in the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs), the High Priority Violation (the term used in the Clean Air Act program), or the Serious Violator (the term used in the Safe Drinking Water Act program) lists. These are the most serious violations in the EPA database.

That information is available at the agency’s Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO) website, which launched a new interactive mapping tool in September that allows reporters to access federal and state enforcement information and to compare enforcement actions by state.

There are ways for journalists to play a slightly more active role in environmental law enforcement, however. Fisher cited the example of Texas’s McWane Industries, one of the world’s largest manufacturers or cast-iron water and sewer pipes. In 2003, a nine-month investigation by The New York Times, the PBS television program Frontline, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which found that since 1995 there had been 4,600 recorded injuries (“many hundreds of them serious ones”), nine deaths, and more than 400 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations at McWane’s foundries. Following the report, the EPA and DOJ launched investigations that resulted in numerous convictions and tens of millions of dollars in penalties.

On the opposite end of the legal process, Fisher cited the example of Albania Deleon, who issued fraudulent asbestos-removal training certificates to hundreds of untrained workers in Massachusetts from 2001 to 2006. Deleon fled to the Dominican Republic two days before her sentencing in 2010 and landed on the EPA’s fugitives list. Dominican authorities found and arrested her nineteen months later, and handed her over to the US Marshalls.

“There was a lot of press in The Boston Globe and other places about her absconding from justice,” Fisher said. “So, whether the word got out that way and somebody gave us a tip, or whether it wasn’t a media article, but a direct website view, I don’t know. But that’s one way that there’s a real role for media to publicize something that helps our cases a lot.”

It’s important to understand that press-police collaboration is not the goal and that journalists are not there to help law enforcement, however. If reporters do an investigation into something illegal, and the cops end up pursuing charges, that is one thing. But looking for ways to help the police is another.

Nonetheless, Luis Santiago, a special agent in US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Law Enforcement, said that stories about ongoing investigations can generate useful tips and coverage of successful prosecutions can act as a deterrent for other would-be criminals. He also pointed out that journalists need to be careful not disrupt the enforcement process.

CNN’s 2007 “Planet in Peril” series featured an episode in which Anderson Cooper and Jeff Corwin tagged along with Thai police officers during a raid of illegal animal trading operations at a local market. But the illicit vendors saw the group, camera crew and all, coming and closed their shops before any busts could be made.

“What if there’s an operation going on, and then you get in the way?” Santiago said, when asked about CNN’s report. “Maybe there was surveillance going on or something bigger happening—years invested in tracking the bad guy. If it’s an international case, there’s a lot of risk in terms of the time, effort, and money that get put in, so [reporting efforts] could have a negative impact. How you strike a balance? There’s not really a clear reference for that, but if there’s information out there, why not bring it to law enforcement agencies, because you never know what’s in the making. It could help them to do a better coordinated investigation.”

That might be a tough sell for a journalist working on a big scoop, however, and again, it’s not the press’s job to help law officers do theirs. Journalists and cops may often wind up following the same sordid trails, but ultimately, their primary responsibility is to dig up information in a responsible manner and give it public airing, regardless of what may or may not happen in the courts.

New Orleans Times-Picayune on Criminal Charges to Hold BP Accuntable

Holding BP accountable for bad decisions that led to oil spill disaster: An editorial

Published: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:34 AM

By Editorial page staff, The Times-Picayune

The federal government's most conclusive report on the Deepwater Horizon disaster reaffirms the crucial finding shared by some of the other probes into the tragedy: that BP's failure to assess the well's risks and the company's relentless drive to cut corners at the expense of safety were the main catalysts for the catastrophe. That unequivocal conclusion should demolish BP's efforts to deflect blame for the blowout and the subsequent oil spill, especially when it comes to determining payment of the massive fines related to the incident.

File photoThe Deepwater Horizon oil rig burns and collapses into the Gulf of Mexico on April 22, 2010.

But that's not the only reason why the report by the Joint Investigation Team of the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and the Coast Guard is important.

Members of the joint team conducted the only non-criminal probe of the disaster that had subpoena power. That allowed investigators to question, under oath, a large number of witnesses -- many in public hearings conducted in Kenner -- and to access extensive records from the firms involved. As a result, the joint report's damning findings regarding BP should weigh heavily as the U.S. Department of Justice conducts its own probe into whether the oil giant violated criminal law.

Already, some environmentalists and Gulf advocates argue that the joint investigation report strongly supports a finding that BP was grossly negligent, a conclusion that would call for the maximum fines possible under the Clean Water Act.

Indeed, members of the joint investigative team clearly believe that BP personnel sacrificed safety in order to save time and money at the Macondo well. The report noted that at the time of the blowout, the project to drill Macondo was behind schedule and $58 million over budget. The document includes a chart specifically keying on seven critical decisions in the design of the well and the drilling process -- all made by BP managers.

Those decisions included two key missteps first reported by Times-Picayune reporter David Hammer last fall. BP, at the last minute, canceled a test that would have checked the cementing job's integrity, even though the company had a contractor at the site ready to do it. BP also decided to use a cheaper well structure that ignored the difficulties of drilling in the ultra-deep water and in difficult geological formations.

The company also decided to use only six so-called "centralizers" to keep the well's casings centered and ensure a good cementing job, far fewer than the 21 centralizers recommended by computer models.

In each of the seven troubling decisions highlighted in the report, investigators concluded that BP's choice was cheaper and required less drilling time. In six of the cases, BP's favored option increased risks at the well.

"BP's failure to fully assess the risks associated with a number of operational decisions leading up to the blowout," and the company's "cost- or time-saving decisions without considering contingencies and mitigation were contributing causes of the Macondo blowout," the report concluded.

An indictment of BP's decisions doesn't get any clearer than that.

Therein lies a key distinction between the joint investigative team and the presidential oil spill commission. While the commission also chastised BP for what it called "an overarching failure of management," its report put more blame for the disaster on Transocean and Halliburton than the joint investigative team does.

For example, both probes concluded that a failure of cement poured to the bottom of the well was the key catalyst for the blowout. But the presidential commission suggested shared blame between BP and cement contractor Halliburton, noting that Halliburton didn't give BP full test results on the cement mix used. The joint investigative report noted that Halliburton was still waiting for results of some of the cement testing and relayed that information to BP managers on April 19, 2010, a day before the blowout. BP officials decided to go ahead with the cementing job anyway.

The differences between the reports have major economic and policy ramifications. In focusing its findings on decisions made by BP managers, the joint investigative team mostly steered clear of echoing the flawed indictment of the entire drilling industry made by the presidential oil commission.

The commission's report argued that the Macondo blowup reflected systemic problems across the industry -- in contradiction to previous independent investigations. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration used the commission's report to support its case for an unnecessary, industry-wide moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.

The joint investigative team focused its blame instead on bad decisions made by BP personnel at the site. Although the report makes recommendations for improving safety across the industry, the problems found at Macondo and BP's cost-driven managerial style does not necessarily reflect industry-wide irresponsibility as suggested by the presidential commission.

Transocean and Halliburton were not blameless. The joint investigative team found that the two companies, like BP, violated numerous federal offshore safety regulations. Those violations aggravated the disaster and complicated the response to it.

But the joint investigative team's report is a rebuke of BP's efforts to try to shift most of the responsibility for the disaster to its contractors. BP can protest all it wants, but this latest report -- and the findings from other investigations -- makes clear that the oil giant made the key decisions at the site and was more concerned with cost-cutting than safety.

Now the Justice Department must hold BP and its managers accountable for those decisions.

© 2011 NOLA.com. All rights reserved.

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agricultural and Natural Resources Law re: BP Criminal Prosecution

Friday, October 14, 2011

Should BP Face Criminal Liability for the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill?

By: Neal Manor, Staff Member

On the first anniversary of the permanent sealing of the Macondo Prospect well in the Gulf of Mexico, more questions than answers remain concerning BP’s criminal liability for the damage its 206 million gallon oil spill caused. Last week, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) published a report[1] examining the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 people and led to the largest unintentional oil spill in history.[2]

A BOEMRE panel of investigators concluded that BP and its contractors Halliburton and Transocean violated seven federal regulations.[3] Among these violations were a failure to protect health, safety, property, and the environment, failure to take necessary precautions to keep the well under control at all times, and failure to conduct inspections of major rig components.

Louisiana’s wetlands, thought by many to be damaged irrevocably by the spill, seem poised for a dramatic recovery. Ed Overton, a professor emeritus at Louisiana State University’s Department of Environmental Sciences, collected water samples from an affected area and saw “remarkably normal” results.[4] His research on the condition of the wetlands has shown no sheen on the water from the spill, marshes teeming with new growth, and a relatively healthy fish population.[5] There is an emerging consensus that the spill’s ecological effects could have been worse.[6]

BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, the three corporations principally responsible for operating the Deepwater Horizon rig, might not be so fortunate. Two months after the explosion, with oil still inundating the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama confirmed that a criminal investigation had been launched and that “[i]f our laws were broken…we will bring those responsible to justice….”[7] Some experts believe that the criminal investigation by the Department of Justice will result in indictments and historic criminal fines for BP and its contractors, who were deemed directly responsible for the spill by the BOEMRE panel of investigators.[8] A civil suit has already been filed and will not likely impact whether criminal charges are ultimately pursued.[9]

The averted environmental apocalypse should not preclude the Department of Justice from issuing criminal charges against those responsible for the largest unintentional oil spill in history. With the moratorium on deep-water drilling imposed by President Obama after the spill now lifted, substantial disaster prevention methods other than new rules and regulations are necessary. Criminal prosecution of BP, Halliburton, and Transocean will serve retributive purposes in a way that civil penalties simply cannot. Most importantly, the potential punishment these three corporations receive would deter other major corporations involved in similar offshore drilling operations from taking economic shortcuts and putting the bottom line before safety.

---

[1] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Report Regarding the Causes of the April 20, 2010 Macondo Well Blowout, Volume II (2011), available at http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2011/press0914.htm.

[2] Joel Achenbach and David A. Fahrenthold, Oil Spill Dumped 4.9 Million Barrels into Gulf of Mexico, Latest Measure Shows, The Washington Post (Aug. 3, 2010), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204695.html.

[3] See 30 C.F.R. § 250.107; 30 C.F.R. § 250.300; 30 C.F.R. § 250.401; 30 C.F.R. § 250.420(a)(1) ; 30 C.F.R. § 250.427(a); 30 C.F.R. § 250.446(a); 30 C.F.R. § 250.1721(a).

[4] Neal Conan, Checking in on Gulf on Heels of BP Spill Report, National Public Radio (Sept. 15, 2011), http://www.npr.org/2011/09/15/140508713/checking-in-on-gulf-on-heels-of-bp-spill-report.

[5] Id.

[6] Bryan Walsh, The BP Oil Spill, One Year Later: How Healthy is the Gulf Now? Time Science (Apr. 19, 2011), http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2066031,00.html.

[7] Brian Montopoli, Obama Vows “Justice” for Oil Spill Crimes, CBS News (June 1, 2010), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006435-503544.html.

[8] David M. Uhlmann, After the Spill is Gone: The Gulf of Mexico, Environmental Crime, and the Criminal Law, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 1413 (2011).

[9] Id. at 1435.

White Collar Crime Prof Blog re: BP Criminal Charges

September 08, 2010

Feds are armed and dangerous in BP criminal investigation

Guest Blogger - Dan Cogdell

As the Justice Department prepares a grand jury investigation of possible crimes involved in the BP oil spill, ex-CEO Tony Hayward is looking smarter for leaving this country for reasons beyond his lack of popularity.

Multiple indictments are likely to be sought, charges could reach well up the corporate ladder and British citizens who are not in this country when indicted might have protection from “double criminality,” which prevents extradition unless the same action is a criminal offense in both countries. It’s very possible the Justice Department will stretch the envelope and that could put their use of U.S. laws in a place not covered by European Union law.

There is no question the federal government is taking dead aim at environmental crimes in the BP oil spill or that the legal artillery is formidable. Federal prosecutors were already ramping up their environmental crime filings before the Deepwater Horizon started spewing oil into the gulf. Now, with massive public pressure, this could be the environmental version of the Enron prosecutions.

This week (8/23-8/27) the U.S. Coast Guard and the Interior Department are holding hearings in Houston to further investigate the BP disaster. Witnesses who invoke the Fifth Amendment may not look like team players, but they will be taking the smartest path.

Expect prosecutors to take fullest advantage of the powerful and far-reaching tools they have available. Expect them to issue more than just wrist slaps and corporate fines out of the Refuse Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Clean Water Act. Expect them to seek jail time. There is a lot going in their favor.

Prosecutors will most assuredly rely on the “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine,” which allows Clean Water Act violations to be directed at even top corporate officers. Prosecutions under this theory have resulted in convictions of people who were not even at work sites and, in one case, not even working for a company but had “honorary power.” (See United States v. Hanousek, 176 F. 3^rd 1116 (9^th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1102 (2000), and United States v Brittain, 931 F2d 1413 (10^th Cir. 1991)) The “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine” may be the prosecutor’s ticket to tag BP’s hierarchical elite while soothing the related political nightmare currently facing the U.S. government.

In a Clean Water Act misdemeanor case, the government does not have to prove that anyone intentionally caused this enormous harm. Negligence is a comfortably lower bar for these prosecutors. And this isn’t BP’s first rodeo. A company culture that prosecutors contend encourages money-saving over safety has landed BP in the government’s sights time and time again, and will only bolster the prosecutor Howard Stewart’s efforts.

Whether BP employees or contractors believe they are targets or not, they must balance the idea of seeing justice done with protecting themselves and their employer. Taking the Fifth at this point may be the least popular but most prudent move.

Dan Cogdell is a Houston-based criminal defense attorney with Cogdell & Ardoin who has represented numerous clients in environmental and white-collar criminal cases.

(DC)

Alexander Coburn re: BP's criminal exposure to fines and prison sentences

BP Faces Fines of Up to $10 Billion, Plus Jail Time for Guilty Officials

Share

For its huge oil spill last summer in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is facing "the largest criminal fine ever paid in the United States," according to the man who worked for 17 years in the Environmental Crimes Section at the Justice Department and ran the Crimes Section for seven.

These days, David Uhlmann is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. He recently authored an article — "After the Spill Is Gone: The Gulf Of Mexico, Environmental Crime, and the Criminal Law" — scheduled for publication this spring in the Michigan Law Review.

In the article, Uhlmann says it's a sure thing that the Justice Department will bring criminal charges against BP, Transocean and in all likelihood, Halliburton.

The charges will include criminal violations of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Act — two of the environmental crimes charged in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case.

But what is probably prompting sweaty palms and atrial fib in the relevant corporate suites is that in an interview with the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, released Feb. 16, Uhlmann predicts there'll be federal manslaughter charges for the deaths of the 11 workers who died when the Deepwater Horizon well exploded in April 2010.

Last month, BP gave a muted sigh of relief after the Obama-appointed national commission to investigate the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico said it stemmed from a "failure of management" but didn't build an overwhelming case for "gross negligence" — which would mean much higher fines and kindred penalties.

But a criminal prosecution requires only that the violation was negligent. Grossness is not mandatory. A criminal prosecution would be separate from the civil action, but the Justice Department can launch it while a civil action is under way. With criminal sanctions, the penalties facing BP would be far harsher, including possible jail time for individuals.

"The President has described the Gulf oil spill as the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history," Uhlmann points out, and "the precedent for bringing criminal charges was set more than 20 years ago when the Justice Department prosecuted Exxon for the Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound."

"What about the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute — the law under which you say the manslaughter charges will be brought?" Corporate Crime Reporter asks.

"It's a very old statute, which predates the environmental laws that were violated in this case," Uhlmann answers. "Under the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute, it is a crime if a worker dies aboard a vessel because of negligence or inattention to duties by the master of the vessel or the owner of the vessel."

"It's a felony violation that could result in up to ten years in prison and significant fines.

The worker deaths are an important part of the Gulf oil spill case that should not be forgotten. As terrible as the ecological harm was to the Gulf, this tragedy began with eleven people losing their lives."

"I expect the Justice Department to include criminal charges under the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute in any indictment. Prosecutors will want to address the misconduct that caused those workers to die, and the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute allows them to do so. I would be very surprised if charges are not brought based on the worker deaths."

BP has been clinging to the hope of a deferred or non-prosecution agreement. A deferred prosecution is an agreement not to seek criminal charges in exchange for the functional equivalent of civil penalties. Ironically, Corporate Crime Reporter runs a story in the same current newsletter on the rise of these agreements in recent years.

But Uhlmann tries to slam that door shut. "Deferred prosecution would be completely inappropriate after a tragedy like the Gulf oil spill. ... Eleven people died. A fragile ecosystem was irreparably damaged. Communities along the Gulf suffered billions in economic losses."

"If the companies that caused such terrible damage do not deserve criminal prosecution, it is hard to imagine ... If the outcome of the Gulf oil spill case is a deferred prosecution, the Justice Department will have a lot of explaining to do."

What about the fines?

To date, the largest criminal fine paid by a corporation was the $1.3 billion paid by Pfizer in fall 2009 for illegal marketing of Bextra, a drug used for the relief of pain, fever, swelling and tenderness caused by osteoarthritis.

The fine paid by BP will dwarf the fine paid by Pfizer, according to Uhlmann, who explains that under the Alternative Fines Act, the government can seek up to twice the losses associated with the Gulf oil spill, which puts the maximum fine well into the tens of billions of dollars.

The bottom line? "I don't think we will see a $30 billion or a $40 billion fine, but a criminal sentence of $10 billion would be appropriate, along with an equal amount in civil penalties. At a minimum, we will see a multi-billion criminal fine for BP."

What about individual culpability? According to Uhlmann, "There is no question that the Department will want to prosecute individuals. ... The government is going to struggle to identify individuals high enough up in the chain of command at BP, Transocean and Halliburton to warrant criminal prosecution."

Executives at BP, Transocean and Halliburton are no doubt hopefully rereading Obama's recent speeches pledging a more corporate-friendly posture on the part of his administration across the next two years.

Alexander Cockburn is co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book "Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils," available through www.counterpunch.com. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Criminal Charges for BP -- It's Long Past Time

Two days before the end of 2011, the Wall Street Journal reports (below) that criminal charges are about to be brought against corporations and persons responsible for the catastrophic oil "spill" in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by a preventable explosion that caused eleven preventable workers deaths.

The trial promises to be the environmental equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials.

Let those who caused this spill have a fair day in court before a jury of their peers.

Let's hope that any prison sentences are severe, and that probation includes public service -- cleaning up their mess for the next twenty years.

Let's hope the government suspends and debars BP from all government contracts, instead of the usual wrist-slap that suspension and debarment officials administer whenever the offending corporate felon is an oligopolist with powerful political connections.

Wall Street Journal: Criminal Charges Are Prepared in BP Spill

By TOM FOWLER

U.S. prosecutors are preparing what would be the first criminal charges against BP PLC employees stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident, which killed 11 workers and caused the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, said people familiar with the matter.

WSJ's Tom Fowler reports the U.S. is preparing federal charges against BP related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Charges could include providing false information on a federal documents. AP Photo.

Prosecutors are focused on several Houston-based engineers and at least one of their supervisors at the British oil company, though the breadth of the investigation isn't known. The prosecutors assert the employees may have provided false information to regulators about the risks associated with the Gulf of Mexico well while its drilling was in progress, these people said.

The felony charges—which might be disclosed early in 2012, if they are brought—could involve providing false information in federal documents, these people said. A conviction on such a charge carries a penalty of up to five years in prison as well as a fine.

The Department of Justice still could decide not to bring charges against the individuals, people familiar with the situation said. It's not unusual for prosecutors to use the threat of charges to pressure people to cooperate in investigations.
[SPILLCRIM] Associated Press

The Deepwater Horizon blast killed 11 and caused a massive oil spill.

Legal experts say BP itself is expected to face broader criminal charges, including violations of the federal Clean Water Act; the company already is appealing what could amount to $36.6 million in administrative fines levied by U.S. regulators for safety violations. The size of the fines hasn't been finalized.

BP spokesman Daren Beaudo declined to comment on the potential for charges against employees or the company. The company has said it believed the accident was caused by a combination of events that involved multiple parties, not just BP.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

A federal task force based in New Orleans has spent the past 18 months investigating the April 2010 accident. Prosecutors have reviewed thousands of documents and conducted dozens of interviews, including bringing some individuals before a grand jury, according to people close to the investigation.
More Related Video

Ruling on BP's Dispute With Russian Partners Nears (12/16/2011)
BP Zings Halliburton in Court Over Evidence (12/06/2011)
Final Oil-Spill Report Chastises BP, Others (09/14/2011)

Prosecutors recently looked into a key safety measure in deep-water drilling: The difference between the minimum amount of pressure that must be exerted in a well's bore by drillers to keep the well from blowing out, and how much pressure would break apart the rock formation containing oil and gas. The narrower the margin between those two points, the more difficult a well is to control.

Federal regulations don't define what margin qualifies as safe, but companies are supposed to identify the margin in their applications for permits to drill. When a company cannot maintain that safety margin, it is supposed to suspend drilling and remedy the problem.

Among questions prosecutors are asking is whether information gathered during drilling that helped determine the safety margin in the Deepwater Horizon situation was properly reflected in amended drilling permit applications that had to be approved by federal regulators, said the people familiar with the investigation.

The prosecutors' questions appear to mirror concerns raised earlier this year in public filings by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the new U.S. enforcement division spun out of the former Minerals Management Service in a reorganization after the accident.

The agency in publicly disclosed citations has accused BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co., the company responsible for cementing the well after it was drilled, of violating several offshore drilling rules. BP faces four violations of a rule that requires a company to stop drilling when the safe drilling margin is violated. BP is contesting the civil charges.

Criminal charges have been brought in previous oil spills, most notably the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident, in which an Exxon oil tanker hit a reef off the Alaskan coast and spilled 11 million gallons of crude. Exxon, now Exxon Mobil Corp., faced five criminal charges, including two felonies for placing an incompetent crew on the ship and three misdemeanor charges of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Clean Water Act.

The company later reached a settlement under which it pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors and paid $100 million in restitution. The company also paid $900 million to Alaska and the federal government for damaging natural resources.

The only individual charged in the Valdez case was captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was accused of three felonies—criminal mischief, operating the ship while intoxicated and reckless endangerment—and a misdemeanor charge of negligently discharging oil. A jury found him guilty only of the misdemeanor, and he was sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service and $50,000 in restitution.

The Deepwater Horizon criminal investigation is separate from a group of civil cases under way in U.S. District Court in New Orleans. The first trial, to determine the level of liability BP and other companies will face over the spill, is scheduled to begin Feb. 27, barring a settlement among the companies and the plaintiffs. BP has said it wasn't negligent and plans to mount a vigorous defense.

The judge in that case, Carl Barbier, also is set to conduct another trial to determine how much oil actually escaped from the well before it was sealed and to what degree the companies controlled the release. The third phase will cover how the companies did in containing and cleaning up the spill.

Write to Tom Fowler at tom.fowler@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications
The Exxon Valdez tanker spilled approximately 11 million gallons of crude off the Alaskan coast in 1989. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the tanker spilled 11 million barrels.

St. Augustine Record letter re: benefits of mooring field -- protecting Bridge of Lions from damage from boats during heavy winds

Letter: City's mooring field is safe option for boaters
City's mooring field is safe option for boaters
Posted: December 28, 2011 - 11:26pm

City’s mooring field is safe option for boaters

Editor: I am retired with my husband after 35 years of boating on sailboats, a sail catamaran and finally on two power boats. We have anchored on the Virginia coastline, in Maryland waters, the Bahamas and lastly, Florida where we now reside.

The most terrifying night we spent on our Prout Catamaran was on anchor (several of them) when a freak wind blew up in Boot Key in Marathon, Fla. We helplessly kept watch hoping our three anchors would hold as we watched neighboring vessels, both new and derelict; careen around the dark harbor because their regular anchors could not hold ground. With the help of boat hooks and fenders we were able to avoid possible collisions and made it though that terrible night. Others were not so fortunate.

Recently I have read published letters from visiting boaters who were extremely critical of our recent (and long overdue) mooring system at the Bridge of Lions anchorage area. Perhaps residents recall several incidents over the past years when boats lost anchor and damaged the vessels and the bridge. That event occurred during the final stages of rehabilitation of the Bridge of Lions and a photo of a dismasted sailboat rammed into the side of the bridge was printed in The Record. Considerable damage was done. My husband and I know from experience that the holding ground generally is not good in that area and that a heavily weighted mooring offers the best protection for all concerned.

I was sorry to read those critical letters. A 10-day grace period to use a regular anchor, and the many advantages that come with a $20-a-day mooring fee makes me wonder how a reasonable boater could feel that this tourist- based town of St. Augustine is an unfriendly port for cruising boaters. We hope that any critical magazine articles and captains would reconsider their objections in light of the advantages of mooring a vessel immediately adjacent to the historic bridge, preserved at considerable expense. It is the more convenient and safe option for their waterway visit here.

The City Commission made a prudent decision.

Susan C. Stewart

St. Augustine

Thanks to Miami-Dade Mayor for Vetoing AKERMAN SENTERFITT Lobbying Contract

The Mayor of Miami has rightly vetoed a lucrative lobbying contract with AKERMAN SENTERFITT. See below.

St. Augustine residents will never forget the $300,000 AKERMAN SENTERFITT billed our City of St. Augustine for work defending -- and proposing -- environmental crimes.

First AKERMAN SENTERFITT kept controversial City Manager WILLIAM B. HARRISS from going to jail for putting 40,000 cubic yards of solid waste in our Old City Reservoir. HARRISS blamed underlings, but it was he who ordered the environmental crimes, which were never properly prosecuted by federal or state prosecutors.

Then AKERMAN SENTERFITT euchred and gulled the City and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection into adopting a consent order that would have sent 2000 truckloads of the contaminated solid waste down Riberia Street, top it with dirt, and call it a park. We called it Environmental Racism. That's what it was -- brought to you by the biggest corporate law firm in Florida, Republican lords of all they survey, which now represents BP on its Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Environmental Justice advocates rightly challenged the consent order that AKERMAN SENTERFITT spent so much time persuading our City and State to agree on.

We won.

In fact, AKERMAN SENTERFITT could not persuade a single person who watched its presentation at the St. Paul A.M.E. Church in January 2008. When Judith Seraphin asked that anyone who supported the proposal to stand, not one of the 300 people in the audience stood -- not even the City, FDEP and AKERMAN SENTERFITT lawyers.

Way to go, MIAMI -- this heartless corporate law firm does not deserve government lobbying contracts. Save your money!

AKERMAN SENTERFITT deserves to be investigated.

Of course, Florida's Little False Claims Act applies only to state contracts, not local government contracts, and when I publicly pointed out this to State Representative William L. Proctor in January 2008, PROCTOR mocked me for asking him to "endorse motherhood."

Miami Mayor Vetoes AKERMAN SENTERFITT Lobbying Contract

Banana Republican

Carlos Gimenez Is No Longer Looking Out For Akerman Senterfitt, Lobbyists Who Funded His Campaign

By Francisco Alvarado Thu., Dec. 29 2011 at 8:52 AM

Categories: Banana Republican

Share

0digg

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez has vetoed a controversial lobbying contract that included a law firm that has generously supported his political campaign for the county's top elected position. Citing the county commission's failure to cut the cost of Miami-Dade's lobbying services, Gimenez killed the deal yesterday. He told the Miami Herald the commissioners had to go back to the drawing board because they didn't save taxpayers any money like they promised.

"I vetoed it because I didn't think it was the right thing to do, so they can go back and try again," Gimenez told the Herald.

Back in October, commission Chairman Joe Martinez -- who intends to run against Gimenez in 2012 -- asked the mayor to cancel the county's three year contract with Ron L. Book and Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell in order to invite the firms and other competitors to submit proposals to represent Miami-Dade in Tallahassee at a lower price.

The firms were each receiving $225,000 a year. When the new bid came out, four companies put in for the new contract: The Book and Rutledge firms, along with Ballard Partners and Akerman Senterfitt, an Orlando-based law firm with a major presence in Miami.

Through its partners and employees, Akerman has donated a little over $30,000 to Gimenez's campaigns. This past Dec. 19, county commissioners ignored an offer by Book and Rutledge to cut their fees by $50,000 and selected all four firms.

But the commission didn't save any money because it allocated $170,000 each to the two lobbying firms that were already representing the county, plus $50,000 each to Ballard and Akerman.So now the county commission will have a chance to override Gimenez's first veto or start over.

However, some Herald readers have pointed out the county doesn't need lobbyists in Tallahassee given that it already has assistant county attorneys and staff that work on legislative issues. Denny Wood, president of the Florida Paraplegic Association, says county employees do a good job.

"I have seen them in action and they perform very well," he wrote. "And they do not pass out huge campaign checks to legislators before, during or after the session is over...Any more lobbying firms are just political payoffs to some favorite or entrenched lobbyists on the Miami-Dade gravy train."

Follow Miami New Times on Facebook and Twitter @MiamiNewTimes.

USDOJ Press Release: Department of Transportation Truck Regulator Sentenced to Prison for Bribery

Former Public Official Sentenced for Bribery

U.S. Attorney’s Office December 29, 2011

Western District of New York (716) 843-5700

BUFFALO, NY—U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul, Jr. announced today that James H. Wood, 45, of Delevan, New York, who was convicted of bribery, was sentenced to 18 months in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny in Buffalo. Wood was also ordered to forfeit to the United States government $41,300.00.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Trini E. Ross and Fauzia K. Mattingly, who handled the case, stated that the defendant was a former field office supervisor for the Buffalo Regional office of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for the Department of Transportation. The FMCSA is responsible for the nationwide regulation of the trucking and motor carrier industry, including foreign motor carriers.

Regarding the offense for which Wood was convicted, from 2008 through 2011, the defendant accepted bribes from consultants working for Canadian trucking companies. In exchange, Wood postponed safety inspections and ensured those companies would receive satisfactory ratings. In addition, the defendant provided consultants with internal agency information including lists of other trucking companies scheduled to be audited.

“The agency involved in this case is dedicated to keeping the nation’s roadways safe. By accepting bribes, this defendant not only abused his position of public trust, he also potentially put those who use public highways at risk,” said U.S. Attorney Hochul. “Our office will not hesitate to vigorously prosecute those who abuse their position.”

The conviction is the result of an investigation by special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christopher M. Piehota and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Investigation Division under the direction of Ned E. Schwartz, Special Agent in Charge.

Former Record Editor Jim Sutton Writes Angry, Front Page Opinionated Column on Fishing -Regulation -- Dozens of Readers React -- Check It Out!

New hunting, fishing regs for 2012

State waters

Posted: December 26, 2011 - 11:37pm

Back | Next

The speckled seatrout with the famous yellow mouth and pair of upper teeth. Beginning Feb. 1 the bag limit goes up. BY JIM SUTTON, Special to The Record

By JIM SUTTON

Special to The Record

For anglers who still have enough money left in the bank to buy gasoline and insurance — or a boat in the driveway not yet owned by the bank — there’s good news and bad news when it comes to fishing in the New Year.

The good news is this: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s and the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council‘s reign of error is over for another year.

The bad news is that both are greasing up the thumbscrews and tightening the racks for 2012.

Their regulatory wish list for 2012 includes possible annual catch limits for pelagic species such as sailfish, wahoo, king mackerel, dolphin and blackfin tuna.

But the real scheme has federal fishing managers giddy.

It’s called Catch Shares. These can be — and are — disguised as Individual Fishing Quotas or a list of bureaucratic acronyms solely designed to rob the public of fishing rights; then give them to the strongest lobby or sell them off to the highest bidder.

Call it the reverse Robin Hood theorem of marine management.

But there’s enough regulation on the books right now to sink the maritime economies of historic fishing towns such as St. Augustine and Fernandina Beach. In the charter, commercial and recreational realm the bread and butter of the bottom fishing industry is the big four: red snapper, vermillion snapper, black sea bass and grouper.

Snapper is closed indefinitely. Black seabass was closed months early in October and will remain closed until June 1. Vermillion snapper is closed until March 31. And grouper fishing closes Jan. 1 through April 30.

The offshore bottom fishing cupboard is bare. There’s no need for commercial or recreational guys to burn gas.

And if charter captains are honest up-front, few potential customers will be willing to pay to practice catch-and-release on these species.

NOAA is pushing the throttles full forward in its attempt to privatize the ocean. The initial target in the coming year will be commercial fishermen. But proposals are already written with the weekend fishermen in mind.

State waters

While the federal agencies decide marine management apparently by rock-scissors-paper, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission works hard to gather real data on fish stocks and uses it to strike a balance between fish and fishermen. It has employed strict bag, size and slot limits on fish for years. The result is a resurgence of redfish and speckled seatrout from dangerously low stocks.

This has never been more evident than 2012.

Because spawning and escapement numbers are so high, the FWC is actually increasing the limit on the two most popular brackish water species — the seatrout and redfish. Beginning in February the seatrout daily limit goes up from five to six fish. Size limit remains a 15- to 20-inch slot, with one fish allowed over 20 inches. The closed season in February has been lifted as well. At the same time, the limit on redfish doubles from one to two fish per person per day. Commercial seatrout fishermen also go an expanded season.

In a few instances state rules and federal rules differ.

Florida controls waters out to three miles offshore on the Atlantic coast; nine in the Gulf. Red snapper theoretically can be caught in state waters, though there are very few snapper in that shallow. Black sea bass remains open in state waters and the limit remains 15 fish with a 12-inch minimum size limit. For cobia, the state allows one fish per person. In federal waters its two fish per person. But both have a vessel limit of six fish.

Freshwater

There are no new freshwater regulations that affect Northeast Florida.

Hunting

The FWC initiated major season changes in 2011, all designed to better take advantage of the deer rut in different parts of the state. There are no new regulations, size or bag limits in the New Year. One interesting change this year is the special youth turkey hunting weekend on public land. The hunt opened in 2011, but on private land only. This year Wildlife Management Areas are hosting the hunts. The hunts are for youth under 16. They’re scheduled the weekend prior to the opening of the general spring turkey season. The kids won’t need licenses or permits but the adult accompanying them will. The adult is allowed only to set decoys and call turkeys in. The special hunt is March 10-11.

Not all the WMAs hold the hunt and some require quota permits. Don’t dawdle. The quotas are being filled now. Log on to MyFWC.com for specifics or call the WMA you’re interested in hunting.

Here are rules for our more popular fish in 2012:

Amberjack — 28-inch to fork; bag limit one

Bass (largemouth, Suwannee, shoal and spotted) – One over 22 inches; bag limit five

Black sea bass — 12 inches; bag limit five; currently closed in federal waters; open in state

Bluefish — 12 inches; bag limit 10

Catfish — not regulated

Cobia — 33 inches; bag limit two in federal waters, one in state waters

Crappie — No minimum; bag limit 25

Cubera snapper — 36 inches; bag limit two

Dolphin — 20 inches; bag limit 10

Drum — Slot 14-24 inches; bag limit five

Flounder — 12 inches; bag limit 10

Grouper — Size, bag limits and seasons vary widely on different species. Check current regulations at safmc.net

King mackerel — 24 inches; bag limit two

Lane snapper — 8 inches; bag limit 10

Mangrove snapper — 12 inches; bag limit 10

Mullet (black or silver) — no minimum; bag limit 50

Panfish (shellcracker, bluegill, warmouth, redbreast etc.) — No minimum; bag limit 50

Pompano — 11 inches; bag limit six

Redfish — slot 18-27 inches; bag limit 2 (Feb. 1)

Red porgy — 14 inches; bag limit three

Sheepshead — 12 inches; bag limit 15

Spanish mackerel — 12 inches; bag limit 15

Speckled seatrout — slot 15-20 inches, one over 20; bag limit 6 (Feb. 1)

Striper: (including sunshine and white bass) — six over 24 inches; bag limit 20

Tarpon — no minimum; bag limit two (with $50 tags)

Triggerfish — 12 inches; bag limit 20

Vermillion snapper — 12 inches; bag limit five - currently closed

Wahoo — no minimum; bag limit two

Weakfish (yellowmouth trout) — no minimum; bag limit 50

Whiting — not regulated

• Comment
• 
  
• 
  
• 31
• 
  
• 
  

Follow This Article

0

Comments (30)

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The St. Augustine Record or StAugustine.com. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Why is an opinion piece on the front page?

By me | 12/27/11 - 07:33 am

In the print version, this is on the front page, presented as a news article. It belongs on the Opinion page.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

• Login or register to post comments

You have an opinion, this is factual based NEWS.

By funnymermaid | 12/27/11 - 08:42 am

"Me", where do you get this article is an "Opinion"? This is important NEWS to fishermen!

You are the one who has an "Opionion" about this news article! Lets please keep our facts straight...

• Login or register to post comments

This story does indeed belong

By Iloveamerica | 12/27/11 - 09:22 am

This story does indeed belong on the front page and here is my reason for saying so.

So many within the marine/fishing industry are affected negatively by this ramped-up attempt to control American business. People such as commercial fisherman, pleasure and sport fisherman, fishing charter companies, guided fishing tour businesses, hotel and restaurants that cater to fisherman, boat manufactures, boat repair businesses, tackle and bait shops, boat trailer manufactures, boat storage companies, outboard and inboard engine manufactures, marine engine repair shops, fishing pole/tackle manufactures and distributors, people who work in fish markets, the American consumer, to name just a few. All of this new regulation is to the detriment of our economy.

But do our out-of-control bureaucrats and policy makers really care how it affects people out in the real world who are trying to make a living, frankly I seriously doubt it!

And what do we get from people like “Me”, a little slogan below his post from a socialist, watta crock!!!

Liberalism is a terminal disease

• Login or register to post comments

Seriously?

By me | 12/27/11 - 10:24 am

"Me", where do you get this article is an "Opinion"?

Well, I'd start with the entire first paragraph. Then I'd make a list, then ask to see if a Journalism 101 student could rewrite it to be non-biased:

reign of error

greasing up the thumbscrews and tightening the racks

real scheme has federal fishing managers giddy.

solely designed to rob the public

the reverse Robin Hood theorem

to sink the maritime economies

offshore bottom fishing cupboard is bare

pushing the throttles full forward in its attempt to privatize the ocean

FWC is actually increasing

I'm sure I missed a few adjectives and opinions in there. Yes, the actual size limits and rules changes are there, but this is an opinion piece written to explain it. Could they not have presented the facts, then accompanied it with the opinion, instead of incorporating them into one article?

This is not a question of whether the rules are good or bad, it's a question of journalistic ethics.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

• Login or register to post comments

Living off of the land

By SK84LIFE | 12/27/11 - 10:30 am

I think that these regulations are grossly overboard. I have been fising in st auggie for all of my life and man has been living of off the bountys of the sea since the beginning of time. Has the option of closing cerntain sections of the ocean for spawning and allow people to fish other areas at the same time. Livelyhoods have been taken and the economical ripple effect is endless. Let us catch a few fish and find a balance for everyone. Im sure that can be done without fishing out all species. MAN EATS SEAFOOD. let us continue.

Cc

• Login or register to post comments

BTW

By SK84LIFE | 12/27/11 - 10:38 am

Im just a river fisherman who fishes for fun and food and have never had any monitary gain from fishing, only spent money.I used to take 2-3 charter trips a year offshore.No reason to do so anymore. I thought to myself i guess next time we will have to arrange a trolling trip (not nearly as fun as bottom fishing) but i guess thats out too. Thx lawmakers.

Cc

• Login or register to post comments

This is editorialized opinion.

By Ajmarcil | 12/27/11 - 11:15 am

Sutton states a couple news items then goes into a sportsman's rant about over regulation. So, what do we do, Jim? Get rid of all the regulations? Let every worthwhile species be fished out in a couple of years? (Do you remember the issue with cod in the North Atlantic? Without intervention that food source would be gone.)

Individual rights do not include depleting or destroying the enviroment for one's personal enterprise or entertainment, whether you are a corporation (Georgia Pacific, for example, BP for another) or a weekend hobbiest.

Those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

• Login or register to post comments

Opinion

By Flgirl63 | 12/27/11 - 12:23 pm

I may agree with much of the article but it does belong on the opinion page. However, that's par for the course with this paper. If they can't master basic grammar & spelling, why should we expect them to know the difference between fact & opinion?

FLGirl63

• Login or register to post comments

In a world fashioned by FAUX

By lonnya | 12/27/11 - 01:38 pm

In a world fashioned by FAUX News, stories strewn with editorial opinion and inflammatory adjectives that otherwise conform to the readers/viewers/listeners opinion is called fair and balanced news. It is a lie but it sells well. If information (news) challenges the position of those consuming the information, if it contains facts but does not support a readers/viewers/listeners opinion, it is called biased. Sadly, that’s why conservative rarely listen to TV news other than FAUX and why liberals gravitate towards MSNBC.

Objectivity is less valued every day. Delivering information is news. Delivering opinion about news is an editorial. The two don’t mix well.

Consumers of information are becoming less discriminating, less able to distinguish between opinion and news. It should be self-evident that this article is riddled with the editorial opinions of the author. As a news article, it flunks journalism 101. It should be rewritten into two separate pieces or displayed on an editorial page – that’s what it is!

FlGirl63 says -- "If they can't master basic grammar & spelling, why should we expect them to know the difference between fact & opinion"?

Right On!

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

funnymermaid, Stop and think

By lonnya | 12/27/11 - 01:46 pm

funnymermaid,

Stop and think for a minute. The question is -- does this article express an opinion? If it does it is expressing the "editorial opinion" of the author. The question is NOT about what others think about the information. ALL OF US have opinions -- they just don't belong in purported "news articles".

Think beyond YOUR self-absorbed box.

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

more Agenda 21

By cracker | 12/27/11 - 02:20 pm

NOAA Director, Dr. Jane Lubchenco has made implementing the Agenda 21, Catch Share allocation system in every American fishery a top priority. In New England and Florida, American fishermen are out of work. The Governor of Massachusetts declared an economic disaster with a request for $21 million in federal aid. Dr. Lubchenco’s response was asking for $54 million in additional funds to expand the program. We import 84% of our seafood and export (re-distribute) nearly $11 billion to foreign countries like China and Vietnam in a seafood trade deficit.

Learn more -

http://bwcentral.org/rsvpmaker/the-agenda-21-bear-witness-seminar-%E2%80...

http://americanfreedomwatchradio.com/

cracker

• Login or register to post comments

Thanks to me, ajmarcil, and lonnya...

By amdb7 | 12/27/11 - 05:05 pm

for calling the article what it is, an opinion piece, not a news article,
and showing why that is.

As soon as I read "reign of error" I knew it was all over as far as the article being an unbiased report on the status of fishing and providing reasons for limits on catch. Then "rob the public of fishing rights" and "privatize the oceans" were other gems eloquently provided by Jim.

Jim Sutton has a long history of providing opinions for the illustrious Record:

http://staugustine.com/stories/072904/new_2477056.shtml

• Login or register to post comments

Regulations, Me, and today's Journalism

By sunshinekid | 12/27/11 - 05:50 pm

Although I rarely agree with Me, you have to admit there is a lot of opinion in this piece. Me, I wish you had such a scrupulous eye on the media when it comes to the opinionated, biased garbage the liberal media tries to throw down our throat. If you had been more vigorous in defense of journalistic standards during the last presidential cycle, just maybe someone would have vetted our current president and explained just how unprepared he was for the job which most have come to realize. I know this is an opinionated article, but it was refreshing to see it from a point of view where 'the government isn't the answer to everything.' Journalism, although more widely distributed today more than ever in human history, has no standards anymore. This only seems to itch Me when the approach comes from a conservative slant. Regulations can be good, but that can be a slow death also. A regulation to protect us from fishing ourself dry is good, but one where the government tries to take rights from individuals for the sake of revenue is just more socialism which seems to be the rue of the day. Me, count this as one time I agree with you, it just didn't bother me too much...

• Login or register to post comments

Sunshine, any examples of the liberal media and what is throws?

By Ajmarcil | 12/27/11 - 06:08 pm

Sunshinekid,
First, read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," by Senator Al Franken. You're right.(Pun intended.) He's a "liberal." But he takes apart the truly biased right-wing media and its stars and supporters and he does it with meticulously unbiased research. Don't even respond to this until you've checked the book out. (Maybe from a library );-)

The myth and outright bs of a liberal media really needs to stop. It's a way too old conservative fabrication. Show some proof. An incident. An example. Anything.
PS. Check out MSNBC. See if you can find an argument you don't agree with or any spin there. Truth has a liberal bias and it drives head- in- the- sand conservatives nuts.

"Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish."
-Mark Twain

Those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

• Login or register to post comments

sunshinekid

By me | 12/27/11 - 06:46 pm

I echo Ajmarcil's request - please show proof of this "liberal bias" legend.

There are, however, signs that Fox News viewers have a special point of view: a study from the University of Maryland.

"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican. "

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/6...

Interesting, no?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

• Login or register to post comments

Great ME!!

By Busted DQ | 12/27/11 - 08:42 pm

I give your article a 10 for political diarreah! And a nine for attempted stirring...lol...clean your pole!

This guy turns an ad about hunting and fishing into a left wing propaganda platform...this guy is a magician! lol...what a degenerate

“It is difficult to get a man to say something non-political, when his existance depends upon his politics.” - Benny the Low Life

• Login or register to post comments

Lightyear49er This will

By lonnya | 12/27/11 - 10:11 pm

Lightyear49er

This will apparently be way over your head, but I’ll try anyway. No one was talking about “liberal regulations” we were talking about” news” and the difference between “news” and “opinion.” Apparently that distinction is beyond your ability or at least willingness to understand.

It’s not surprising that you don’t understand, a lot of you wing nuts don’t, but Jim Sutton and the editors of this newspaper surely do and should know better than to print garbage like this and call it news.

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

Busted IQ...political diarreah???

By Ajmarcil | 12/27/11 - 10:20 pm

There is no left wing propaganda. See previous post. Truth has a liberal bias. An ad about hunting and fishing? An ad? Just what is "attempted stirring?" This reads like one of the many "I'm -on -the -fifth beer- and, Honey, get- me -another -shot -of- that -Jim Beam, I -got some -serious- writing- to -do- here- stuff. Gotta straighten out those libs..."

Try raising the bar on the discourse on these threads next go round. Hint: If you sound intelligent, some folks might think you are. That's half the game.

Those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

• Login or register to post comments

Me,You publish fact, your

By lonnya | 12/27/11 - 10:52 pm

Me,

You publish fact, you provide a source for your information, it demonstrates your point and reveals the consequences of the misinformation FAUX distributes to its listeners. You back up your contention and show how wrong the typical FAUX listener is when it comes to facts and reality.

In return all you get from these right wing kooks is off color humor in an attempt to change the subject. They don't pay attention to details -- they could care less about cause and effect -- even when it hits them in the face. They just spout the right wing buzz words -- its all they know! They truly can't stand the heat!

Excellent post!

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

lonnya...that's how they win. Ignore the truth and keep shouting

By Ajmarcil | 12/27/11 - 10:46 pm

A tempered level headed well documented discussion is beyond the abilities of the yahoo Right who regularly log on here. They seem to only talk in headlines from right wing blogs or The Fox spin machine. If they would read about Roger Ailes and his creation of Fox News and the marching orders and directives that his employees are given, these individualists might form another opinion, but, alas, that would require actual reading and critical thinking. In politics and religion, life is so much easier when some one tells you what and how to think and requires no input from you, the devotee. Then they only have to think about fishing and hunting, important stuff like that.

Those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

• Login or register to post comments

AJM, I concur. The spin

By lonnya | 12/27/11 - 11:04 pm

AJM,

I concur. The spin about the so called “liberal media” is nonsense. It is a right wing tactic designed to garner more favorable press for themselves and their views. It is a pure intimidation ploy.

For the sake of argument, set MSNBC and FAUX aside. Next, ask these kooks to provide some specific, detailed evidence of a consistent liberal slant in the so called mainstream media. I’ll bet they can’t do it! It’s just more spin.

An objective media source is one that does not confuse their front page news with their editorial page. It is done often by good media, but most on the right will not believe anything on the front page if they don't like the editorial page. All part of that liberal media conspiracy. LOL

Truth be known -- there is probably more right wing media than left.

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

Off the subject of fishing regulation

By wasoutravelin | 12/28/11 - 09:00 am

It's hard to stay on topic, whether or not this article belongs in opinions or news, when many posters seem unable to understand the difference. Though I've mostly voted a conservative ticket in my 30+ years of voting, I'm appalled and disgusted by the lack of REASONABLE arguments from the Right on this forum as well as in the media in general (if you disagree, PLEASE point to where such are located). I am at least slightly educated, as my certificates and degrees reflect, but I failed to complete even a basic course in the dynamics of sound reasoning (I've attended both public and private institutions and can't understand why such courses are NOT required). When I began to take on the challenge of learning more about that subject, I naturally was amazed and humored, but also disgusted to learn of the many shapes and forms in which fiction attempts to disguise itself (yes, I realize it's not a living organism, but those who weave and peddle it, at times masterfullfy make it seem so!). Though I do many times now recognize the tools and trade of unreasoned argument, I still am not practiced enough to partake in arguments logically. Therefore, I long to see conservative viewpoints eloquently argued (on here or elsewhere in the media) so those of us more undecided in the political arena could form opinions in a balanced manner.

wasoutravelin

• Login or register to post comments

Kooks? FAUX news? Rabid right? etc etc

By fec32yrs | 12/28/11 - 09:48 am

"This will apparently be way over your head, but I’ll try anyway."
quote- unquote...

Seriously, the continued rampant condescension from this individual never ceases to amaze me.

• Login or register to post comments

same old clinton news network viewers espousing same old

By yathink | 12/28/11 - 02:15 pm

liberal trash.. and in the process attempting to stifle free expression of those who would dare oppose them !!!! it's about the limits on fishing !!! who gives a rast sass,, if it is an opinion or an article ??? only those holier than thou,, writers who always overlook the fact the record isn't fit for bird cage liner,, yet profess to be the ultimate arbiters of correctness,, in everything concerning saint augustine ???? everyone is entitled to their opinion,, just some of us,, have enough sense to change the subject,, instead of trying to prove just how smart they aren't!!!>>>yathink

• Login or register to post comments

back to original article

By me | 12/28/11 - 02:55 pm

It still belongs on the opinion page. Whether or not you agree with the new regs, please (please?) look at the story and be able to recognize it as opinion.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

• Login or register to post comments

Article...

By Busted DQ | 12/28/11 - 06:34 pm

I got the opinion loud and clear...doesnt matter if the writer was liberal or conservative...but its depressing to see intelligent people spend so much time lapping barf.

I got my views on politics though...its quite simple...Elect a president
and let him do what he does...lol..ok? Then when election time comes up...there will be a question a the bottom of the ballot:

" Shall we punish the president"?

If the majority votes yes....we put him to death.

Id say that crosses all party lines.

“It is difficult to get a man to say something non-political, when his existance depends upon his politics.” - Benny the Low Life

• Login or register to post comments

Fec32yrs,I understand why

By lonnya | 12/29/11 - 12:41 am

Fec32yrs,

I understand why you would consider my comment condescending. I did get a little frustrated, given the absurd, offensive, and completely off topic comment made by lightyear49er (since removed from the folder) that demonstrated not only rudeness and crudeness but also a total lack of understanding about the discussion underway.

These are not rocket science conversations but the continued inability (or is it unwillingness) of some adults to make intelligent or relevant on topic comments does bring into question their competency or motives.

Like my signature line says,” everyone is entitled to their opinion” but when their opinions are unfounded and or poorly expressed it is fair game to call them on it.

But your point is well taken; I’ll try to be a little more tolerant. It would be nice if those holding hard right wing positions tried to do the same.

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

Yathink, Nobody has tried to

By lonnya | 12/28/11 - 08:56 pm

Yathink,

Nobody has tried to stifle legitimate or appropriate free expression. No one! What was suggested was for some of you chronic complainers about the so called “liberal media” to provide a few specific detailed examples to support your complaint.

As yet, I see none of you have tried to do so.

BTW – I think the discussion has long since migrated beyond “the limits on fishing”. It happens around here, discussion does seem to ramble and move on. We never seem to finish a topic, so many prefer to change the subject in order to avoid thinking too hard.

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

• Login or register to post comments

BustedIQ...learn some writing technique...or you sound stupid...

By Ajmarcil | 12/28/11 - 09:29 pm

and no one will pay any attention to your rants. You actually make some sense but your presentation loses your audience.

Those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

• Login or register to post comments

proof of bias

By sunshinekid | 12/29/11 - 11:35 am

There was a study done that compared new stories on the major news outlets and, hold your breath, Fox News was found to be the most fair and balanced. The same study showed that the major news outlets were horrific in their liberal slant. Surely they didn't tell you that at CNN, as they are pretty horrific in their track record also. Proof of liberal bias, hmm I could go on for days, but one that had major implications in the presidential election was: The LA Times sat on video where the potential future president (Obama) had made a speech that even liberal reporters who had seen said it would be very damaging to his prospects of election. It still has not been released. This made national news, surely you heard about it. Do you really think if someone like Newt Gingrich did the same, that the liberal media would sit on video like that? We currently have a democratic power broker that should be in prison (John Corzine), yet because he was in line to be an Obama appointee, he hasn't even been arrested. Almost a billion dollars of client funds missing and an admission of commingling of client funds and no arrest. This is as bad as Bernie Madoff, and it is not covered hardly at all on major news outlets. You know that if it was a Republican power broker, it would be the crime of the century! I could go on or is that enough?