EPA Thugs Destroy Vet Family Over Definition of Navigable Waters

 Big-government socialism claimed another victim days ago, leaving an elderly widow to carry on a cause for basic individual rights that were crushed under the tyranny of the federal EPA.

Joe Robertson, 80, is survived by his wife, and he served with distinction in the U.S. Navy before retiring to the big-sky country of Montana, staying busy with supplying critical water for state firefighters.

It was this business that federal EPA thugs targeted and destroyed on the fraudulent grounds that several ponds on Robertson land created a disturbance to a tiny babbling brook that bureaucrats in Washington DC classified as a navigable waterway.

Oh, the irony. The retired navy man did not see the brook as navigable.

Robertson neglected to obtain a permit, so Robertson must be destroyed, was the moniker the EPA operated by, using the oft destructive Clean Water Act.

Through an extensive and arduous legal struggle that involved the Pacific Legal Foundation, the EPA pursued the matter to an 18-month sentence on Robertson’s back that he served.


The fight to clear Joe Robertson is a fight to restore EPA and other government departments to Constitutional perimeters, to include shuttering the EPA as no such authority is described or delineated in the Constitution. (Free Thought Project photo)

The EPA also slapped a $130,000 restitution fine on the Robertson family that syphoned their Social Security benefits for good.

Little more than a year after his release, the rouged and imposing mountain of a man, navy veteran and partner to area firefighters passed because of what his widow Carri described as natural causes.

Imprisonment and an ongoing case seeking his life and legacy didn’t help, surely, and passing away under the shadow of a 20-month active probation order is an insult this veteran did not deserve.

According to PLF attorneys, the case suffered because of unclear rulings at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A PLF statement reads, “Whether this conviction was lawful depends on the definition of ‘navigable waters.’ In Rapanos v. US (a PLF case), the Court sought to define the scope of the Clean Water Act. The Court split on a 4-1-4 vote.”


The PLF has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Robertson’s conviction

Pacific Legal Foundation statement

So the EPA thugs wing it on the broad interpretation that Justice Kennedy favored, while Justice Scalia’s moderating of federal jurisdiction is ignored, though equally expressed by the Court.

Under Scalia’s plurality opinion, “Robertson would have been found not guilty, if charged at all,” the PLF stated, “since [Robertson’s] ponds are more than 40 miles away from the river, and do not abut lakes or streams.”

The PLF is pursuing a new Supreme Court review of the case, and attorneys are active processing papers in the sad routine to transfer the case to the name of Carri Robertson as petitioner.

“The PLF has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Robertson’s conviction,” they stated.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether it will hear the Robertson case’s appeal.

https://christianaction.org/epa-thugs-destroy-vet-family-over-defin...



Views: 209

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And my response to the unfounded response was stated. Just ?? with no answers of truth as it is known to her. No sharing, just blaming the messenger wanting to know from one that may know the answer..

Richard...

What?  You are scaring me... your writting is beginning to sound like Hank's... try tatking a few deep breaths, shoulders back and head up.... try too refocus and post again... this time try to make sense.

BOOO!!!!!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service