Comments on: Sackett Lawyers are NOT Happy With KEA Blog http://kealliance.org/2011/10/19/sackett-lawyers-are-not-happy-with-kea-blog/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sackett-lawyers-are-not-happy-with-kea-blog Kootenai Environmental Alliance Fri, 17 May 2013 03:03:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Terry J. Harris http://kealliance.org/2011/10/19/sackett-lawyers-are-not-happy-with-kea-blog/#comment-408 Terry J. Harris Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:06:49 +0000 http://kealliance.wordpress.com/?p=1996#comment-408 Jim, respectfully, the "any chance .. at all, by anyone, period" statement just isn't true. And we are certainly not assuming "guilt." Under the CWA, the Sacketts can have their day in court, just not at this stage of the proceedings. If and when the EPA were to enforce the compliance order, a court would review the law and facts and circumstances. At that point, if EPA couldn't prove their case, there would be no finding of liability, no fines, no penalties and no restoration requirements. Arguably, waiting for EPA is not a convenient or pleasant option for the Sacketts, but the option exists. Whether that's sufficient due process is what the Supreme Court will review. Jim, respectfully, the “any chance .. at all, by anyone, period” statement just isn’t true. And we are certainly not assuming “guilt.”

Under the CWA, the Sacketts can have their day in court, just not at this stage of the proceedings. If and when the EPA were to enforce the compliance order, a court would review the law and facts and circumstances. At that point, if EPA couldn’t prove their case, there would be no finding of liability, no fines, no penalties and no restoration requirements. Arguably, waiting for EPA is not a convenient or pleasant option for the Sacketts, but the option exists. Whether that’s sufficient due process is what the Supreme Court will review.

]]> By: Jim Powers http://kealliance.org/2011/10/19/sackett-lawyers-are-not-happy-with-kea-blog/#comment-407 Jim Powers Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:37:49 +0000 http://kealliance.wordpress.com/?p=1996#comment-407 And that is exactly what this case is really about. Not only does the EPA under it's Clean Water Act not have any procedures and policies for "due process" and basically found the landowner guilty of destroying or filling in wetlands, but evidently you have assumed guilt with out the landowner having any chance of having their case reviewed, at all, by anyone, period. I respect your decision to "reserve your outrage" , as the old adage states "it is better to remain quiet and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." And that is exactly what this case is really about. Not only does the EPA under it’s Clean Water Act not have any procedures and policies for “due process” and basically found the landowner guilty of destroying or filling in wetlands, but evidently you have assumed guilt with out the landowner having any chance of having their case reviewed, at all, by anyone, period. I respect your decision to “reserve your outrage” , as the old adage states “it is better to remain quiet and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”

]]> By: Steve Walker http://kealliance.org/2011/10/19/sackett-lawyers-are-not-happy-with-kea-blog/#comment-406 Steve Walker Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:48:54 +0000 http://kealliance.wordpress.com/?p=1996#comment-406 For any attorneys looking to work for the bad guys, PLF is hiring. They popped up in a public interest environmental law job search of mine. How PLF qualifies as "public interest" is beyond me. For any attorneys looking to work for the bad guys, PLF is hiring. They popped up in a public interest environmental law job search of mine. How PLF qualifies as “public interest” is beyond me.

]]>