EnviroLink Forum

You did explain that inthe OP, but in the court documents filed on 10/22/2012 there was no mention of the change. There is a mention in the later document filed in December, but there are still claims of lack of provision based on the original date of the request and not at the point at which the "real" request was determined. As of the last filing I see no such reference to the further modification of the request.

I also see complaints concerning a proposed rule being opened for public comment without the records for that rule being provided to LLF before the comment period expires.

I am seeing a similar pattern as the claim the previous term adminstration was planning to take the guns and ammo away from the people, thus creating a scare response that caused an increase in buying, which created shortages that were given as evidence of the first claim and caused a self fulfilling spiral effect.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Co ... nction.pdf

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

When will the EPA comply and turn over all secret email accounts being run out of the EPA?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

I imagine that would probably depend on when the request that would require compliance is made. Unless you are changing the story again, the last claim was the request for just one account, which is still not reflected in the legal documents in either case.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I stand by this all the way,
and also do not like orgs that are trying to completely do away or pervert the EPA.
I dislike Rush Limbaugh and really most non combat decorated veterans spouting off, and I also think Kerry is a traitor never punished and am sick that he is now SoS.
I don't like the EPA manipulated by admins for their own special interest, unless that interest is in line with the reason for the EPA and helping reduce emissions 90% and other pollution and depletion.
I think they should also control population and immigration seeing it is an environmental disaster of overpopulation, and no one else is doing anything to help those future generations who don't have a voice except through concerned knowledgeable people of now. Those radical deep ecologists like me. I don't want ecocide, or our species(at least that portion who understand and can live sustainably) and millions of others to go extinct in a relatively short time geologically.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Once again my OP clearly laid out a time line that for debate purposes Wayne is refusing to acknowledge. Once again Landmark first asked for all communications from EPA to third parties. Then when asked to narrow the scope Landmark asked for all senior officials of EPA with third parties. Then Landmark asked for one email account. One. Now let’s not beat around the bush here Landmark had information about this account before filing to be sure. EPA refused. Knowing this case was going back to court Landmark strategically asked for more. All secret email account being run out of EPA. Legal strategy. Nothing more. Now I have been accused of "changing my story." Is reading comprehension a problem here?

I don’t know what is pissing Wayne off here. Is it the fact I brought this up? Is that the problem?
Is it the fact that the EPA is attempting to conduct business in secret?
Is it the fact the Wayne feels he has to defend this conduct knowing its wrong but the agenda is most important?
Is it the fact that one legal foundation is attempting to shed some light on that fact that the EPA is lawless?
Is Wayne pissed off because he feels the need to defend this utter and complete FUBAR?

I sure would be pissed if I were saddled with this difficult task. Okay. Wayne I forgive you. You don’t know any better. You’re a leftist drone. A very intelligent drone, but drone non-the-less. I understand now and won’t task you any more. You don't know any better, and it certainly is no intellectual exercise for me.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

That would be due to the biased nature of the source and the lack of support for the story claims in the legal documents they filed in court. Either the story line is not correct or their legal filings are not accurate, which makes both less credible.



Not according to the document they filed in court, but that would not be important .... would it?



Again, not according to the document they filed in court.



According to someone since there is no supporting evidence. Given the differences in the two previous claims this is not probable.



Like the political opinion from FOX? The initial request was based on nothing more than a rumor according to them.



Wait, EPA refused BEFORE the first FOIA? That was never included in the "story" until now.



Based on the aforementioned rumor, but why not just take the same legal action to get the information they supposedly knew about? Why file court documents that do not reflect the supposed timeline thus documenting a misrepresentation to either us or the court?



Which is not mentioned in either of the two documents and one was filed in December.



The evidence shows that to be the case. Where was the initial request refused in the story until this post?



Not on my part. I cannot speak for you.



I am not pissed off, but I am pointing out the numerous issues with your source and the story when compared to the legal documents in the public record.



If it is a fact do you have the evidence to support it? From the story it seemed more of a hunch, for which evidence was being sought.



Not a fact at all, which causes one to question the credibility of the rest of your "facts".



They seem to be taking an unusual path in doing so, but the assumption is unsupported by evidence. If there is such a "fact" known they would just have to release the evidence of the factual nature. Of course, if the basis is an assumption, it cannot be called a fact, but rather a belief.



You are stuck on the belief I am pissed, which I clearly am not. It may be a case of projection due to the fact the legal filings do not correspond to the information/timeline presented in the story.

.

So it may be projetion after all.



You mean like claiming one thing in this story and writing another in the legal documents filed with the courts? I do know better than that. Evidence is important especially where political agenda may be involved.



No, but it does show the nature of your argument.



Then why did you not at least check to see the documents supported your story? Not much intellectual in that exercise. More couch potato-ish if you ask me.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yet, in the legal document filed with the courts in October nothing is mentioned of "communications from EPA to third parties" which is significantly from the terms used.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Co ... _Filed.pdf

10. Accordingly, on August 17, 2012, plaintiff requested records relating to all proposed rules or regulations that have not been finalized by the EPA between January 1, 2012 and August 17, 2012, not including public comments or other records available on the rulemaking docket.



There was a limitation to senior officials at EPA HQ, but again not for communications, but all records that would indicate the identity of a third party. The second filing is more detailed than the first, considering the facts are supposedly the same concerning the request at the time of both filings.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Co ... nction.pdf

Any and all records identifying the names of individuals, groups and/or organizations outside the EPA with which the EPA, EPA employees, EPA contractors and/or EPA consultants have had communications of any kind relating to all proposed rules or regulations that have not been finalized by the EPA between January 1, 2012 and August 17, 2012. For the purposes of this request, “communications of any kind” does not include public comments or other records available on the rulemaking docket.

On September 27, 2012 EPA requested that Landmark narrow the scope of its request. Affidavit of Matthew C. Forys at ¶ 4. Landmark agreed to limit the scope of its request to “senior officials in EPA HQ”. Affidavit of Matthew C. Forys at ¶ 5.



All communication with a third party is different from all records identifying a third party, which is different from records pertaining to all proposed rules and regulations which have not been finalized.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein