Thursday, December 18, 2014

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

"Inslee to lay out ideas for cap-and-trade, carbon tax"
Linked Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Tax

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

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

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

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

Source and Full Article

Enforce the LAW. 

Tax PT Paper Heavily. 

Force them to OBEY the LAW. 

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

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

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

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

File Charges against ALL acting in conspiracy 
to Obstruct Justice.


Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act

More information at 

You have a Legal Right to Clean Air

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Port Townsend Paper= 611,864 tons per year of CO2e"

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

More at

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Reta Laford; Greg Wahl; Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment; NEPA and the Olympic National Forest.

"Cari ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl to ensure inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: Cari Rene []
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Millett, Dean R -FS
Cc: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Navy Warfare Project

Dear Mr. Millett,

We are writing to join many other concerned local citizens regarding your decision to allow Electronic Warfare testing by the Navy on Olympic NF lands. As I'm sure is obvious to you by now, this project has come as a surprise to the residents of Clallam and Jefferson counties. Few members of the public subscribe to your SOPA (or are even aware of such a thing), few residents of these counties read the Gray's Harbor Daily World (which seems to be the only "local" newspaper you use to publish notices in), and there does not appear to have been any "other" effort to inform the general public of a project with the potential to raise substantial concerns. Not good public involvement, and not good public relations.

From reading several newspaper articles over the past couple of weeks, there are many legitimate questions and concerns about the project. Much of this is probably a result of lack of solid information - but where is that information to come from but your agency? (It is your land, not the Navy's.) A few concerns:

* has the Forest Service done any independent analysis, or have you just taken the Navy's analysis on
face value?

* what is really meant by "electromagnetic radiation"? This bald term seems to be scaring a lot of
people. The public needs some clarification.

* your DN/FONSI addresses several localized potential effects pretty well. A concern of many that is not even mentioned is the potential for aircraft overflights and possible increases in noise therefrom. (Oddly, the DN/FONSI doesn't say what happens to the radiation that is emitted from the sites - where does it go?)* what mitigation/safety measures will be used, and how will they make the project acceptable from your perspective?"

Source and More

"Ron ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl to ensure inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: Ron Hansen []
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:57 PM
To: Millett, Dean R -FS; Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Electronic Warfare Testing by the Navy on Olympic NF lands

Dear District Ranger Dean Milett and Forest Supervisor Rita Laford,
I am writing you a second time because of my concerns regarding the Navy's plan to set up an electronic warfare testing site on Olympic National Forest Lands. I believe there would need to be more public information meetings on the Olympic Peninsula; Port Angeles\Sequim, and Port Townsend areas using local papers,the dates, times, and place of said meeting to answer our concerns. A representative from the Navy as well as the Forest Service could inform and answer questions..

Withdrawing the DN/FONSI and addressing all comments received before going further is the wisest way to go.

So many questions in my mind at this time and very little information; please continue this dialogue.

Ron Hansen"

Source and More

"Comments: Forwarded comment -RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

Kelly ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl for inclusion and consideration on the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: moclipsdude . []
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:57 AM
To: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

To Reta Laford,

I understand you will most likely have the final say regarding the Navy's proposal to establish the Olympic Peninsula as an Electronic Warfare Range with a fixed emitter tower at Pacific Beach.
There were three public meetings regarding this issue; at Forks, Port Angeles and last Wednesday at Pacific Beach. Although invited, no one from the US Forest Service was in attendance; not Greg Wahl or Dean Millett.

This was particularly annoying since many of us in the large crowd had questions intended for the Forest Service. Instead, there were five personnel representing the Navy.

Attached is my email sent to Congressman Derek Kilmer, Greg Wahl and Dean Millett on October 25, 2014 and was printed in it's entirety in the North Coast News on November 20, 2014.

Thank you.
Kelly Calhoun
Moclips, Washington"

Source and More

"Forwarded comment -RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment #42759 Annette ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl for inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

-----Original Message-----
From: Annette Huenke []
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:41 PM

To: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment #42759

Why are the Navy and the Forest Service narrowing their focus to exclude potentially harmful -- perhaps deadly -- effects of these war games, when NEPA clearly states that the entire project and its impacts need to be included?

Exactly how much radiation will be projected from each of the Growler jets in one day's training?
Why is the Forest Service not demanding full transparency and full disclosure as Federal law mandates?

Why is the Forest Service considering issuance of a permit that is in direct violation of the Forest Service's Mission Statement.

Thank you in advance for your answer to these questions.

Annette Huenke"

Source and More

Contact Reta Laford, Olympic National Forest Supervisor and Let her know how you feel. She is a NEPA Expert and is the top of the chain of command on the Olympic National Forest..

Supervisor's Office
1835 Black Lk Blvd SW
Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 956 2402

her eMail is


More Information

Forest Service forging ahead on Navy plan; the Olympic National Forest is YOUR FOREST. You pay for them to Violate your RIGHTS.

"By Nicholas Johnson of the Leader

Let the waiting begin.

The public's chance to comment on the U.S. Navy's bid to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to train fighter jet pilots in detecting enemy electronic signals ended on Nov. 28, and U.S. Forest Service officials say it won't be extended.

Some 3,048 comments have been submitted, 80 of which came in after the deadline. They can be reviewed at the Forest Service's online reading room at

Dean Millett, the Forest Service ranger responsible for deciding whether to permit the Navy's use of forest roads, said the Pacific Ranger District office in Forks is now turning its attention to reviewing comments, and he doesn't expect it to go quickly.

His final decision, which he hopes to make by mid-2015, "is not going to happen real soon."
"Well, we've got more than 3,000 comments, so I'm sure there are some issues in there that we're going to have to look at," Millett said, acknowledging that only those deemed substantive will be considered in his review of the Navy's environmental assessment and its finding that the proposed use of those roads would have no significant impact on the natural environment or human communities.
By definition, a substantive comment raises, debates or questions the accuracy or adequacy of specific facts or policies, and attempts to offer some reasonable alternatives to information cited or methods used in the environmental assessment.

"We consider all comments, but substantive ones provide reasoning," Millett said. "Just saying 'I don't like this project' and moving on is not particularly useful."


Millet said he is thinking of calling in the Forest Service's TEAMS Enterprise Unit, a group created in 1994 that now boasts some 150 agency employees who assist with tasks too cumbersome for any regional office's staff resources.

"They're a good source if you have a one-time need for something," he said, such as performing a comprehensive content analysis on public comments. "They specialize in that kind of work, and we don't have the staffing to go through all that in a timely manner. We have other projects we have to be working on."

Of those 80 comments submitted after the deadline, Millet said they would be reviewed in the event something substantive is brought up, but "at some point you have cut things off."

Reviewing comments "may direct us toward doing additional analysis," he said, but he may also decide the original analysis in the Navy's environmental assessment remains sufficient.

Millet will eventually issue a second decision notice on whether to issue a permit, after which those who submitted comments will have 45 days to object to Millett's supervisor, Reta Laford, before a permit is issued. Only those who submitted a comment prior to Nov. 28 will have standing to object at that time.


The Forest Service's decision not to extend the public comment period comes after the Jefferson County Democratic Party called on elected officials on Nov. 18 to push for a more robust public process and production of a full environmental impact statement (EIS).

Karen Sullivan of Port Townsend, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife employee, helped pen the party's resolution. She said she's not surprised the Forest Service did not extend its public comment period, yet intends to continue her research into how the Navy's plan got to this point.

"How did we get here with the public so unaware of all this, and how did the Navy allow this to happen?" she asked. "If we understand the process, it could provide some background for a legal challenge down the road. If there have been flaws in the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process along the way that are objectionable, we need to know this. It's like an Easter egg hunt, trying to find these nuggets of information and then add them up."

Sullivan, who submitted 11 comments and will have standing to object, is working to create a timeline of the process, but said she has run into roadblocks in getting related environmental review documents from the Navy dating back as far as 1989. It's that history, she thinks, that could lead to legal challenge.

Sullivan has questioned several areas of the Navy's environmental assessment, pointing out what she considers to be deficiencies in the state Department of Fish and Wildlife's biological opinion, for example. But she knows getting up to speed can be tough for many.

"We are at a stage where we still need to do a tremendous amount of public education, because all these issues have been split into separate parts and are difficult to understand," she said, pointing to the Navy's simultaneous bid to add 36 EA-18G Growler jets to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island's current fleet of 82. That proposal is in the scoping phase, which comes prior to compiling a draft environmental impact statement, and the Navy is now taking public comments through Jan. 9, 2015, after extending that deadline from Nov. 24.


The Navy wants permission to send utility trucks outfitted with mobile emitters of electromagnetic radiation to 15 preselected sites on the Olympic Peninsula's west end, 12 of which are on forest roads.
Growler jet pilots would then fly over in groups of three, with a lead jet trying to pick up on those electronic signals coming from the emitters as training in identifying enemy communications.
The $11.5 million project would be the Navy's first use of mobile emitters of electromagnetic radiation for training that pilots currently simulate with internal aircraft controls.
The Navy proposes to begin this training in September 2015.

Public meetings in Forks on Oct. 14, in Port Angeles on Nov. 6 and in Pacific Beach on Nov. 19 drew hundreds of people, almost all of whom opposed the project. Comments made during those meetings were not recorded, thus won't be considered by Forest Service officials. Comments made during those meetings were not recorded thus won't be considered by Forest Service officials."


Contact Reta Laford, Olympic National Forest Supervisor and Let her know how you feel. She is a NEPA Expert and is the top of the chain of command on the Olympic National Forest..

Supervisor's Office
1835 Black Lk Blvd SW
Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 956 2402

her eMail is


More Information

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

STOP Police Brutality across all races and Cultures. STOP Police Abuse, Violence and Abuse of Power. STOP abusing US Police

Monday, December 15, 2014

"The city's police department, charges the legal advocacy group, has given itself 'unbridled, unreviewable discretion to suppress protected speech and conduct.'"

"National Lawyers Guild Challenges NYPD on Use of Sound Cannons Against Peaceful Protesters"

"The New York Police Department is being challenged by legal advocates for what they say was the department's use of untested, unregulated military-grade sound cannons during civil rights marches in Manhattan earlier this month.

In a letter (pdf) sent to the office of Police Commissioner Bill Bratton on Friday, the National Lawyers Guild said the department's use of long range acoustic devices (LRADs) against peaceful street protesters violated numerous constitutional amendments. The group demanded a safety review of the device and public release of guidelines over how and under what circumstances they could be deployed.

Videos of officers using the LRADs surfaced on December 4 and 5 during marches that came after a grand jury's failure to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo for the chokehold death of Eric Garner. Crowds can be seen dispersing quickly as loud, shrill, repetitive beeps ring out in short blasts over and over."

"The city's police department, charges the legal advocacy group, has given itself 'unbridled, unreviewable discretion to suppress protected speech and conduct.'"

The police department claimed it had used the device as a loudspeaker to make announcements to the crowd. However, as the New York City chapter of the NLG pointed out in its letter to the Commissioner's office, LRADs are designed to "modify behavior, and force compliance, by hurting people... technology that is designed to induce individual compliance through human discomfort and pain cannot be defined solely as a communication tool."

Initially developed as a sound weapon for the military, the LRAD's so-called "deterrent tone" is meant to hit human hearing at its most sensitive levels. As Amnesty International explains, "LRADs can pose serious health risks which range from temporary pain, loss of balance and eardrum rupture, to permanent hearing damage."
Further, as NLG notes in its letter, even by the standards of the police department's own Disorder Control Unit, the smallest LRADs are in the "dangerous range" for hearing damage and pain.

Elena L. Cohen, president of the NLG's New York City chapter and one of the lawyers who authored the letter, told Common Dreams that LRAD use against protesters not only threatens their physical health, but also violates their constitutional rights

"[A]ny regulation of First Amendment protected speech must be narrowly tailored and avoid burdening substantially more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s legitimate interests," Cohen said. "The NYPD does not seem to have any trouble controlling protests and protesters, or communicating with protesters via bullhorns. 

Using a military sound cannon is clearly not the least restrictive way to get people to move onto a sidewalk or convey message."

One protester who attended the marches when the LRADs were used told Gothamist that he had residual pain from the sound cannon blast for the next six days. "It was like an earache," he said. "Any loud noises made it worse."

Another protester told the New York Times that the experience was not only physically painful, causing her migraines and disorientation, but "emotionally jarring" as well.

"The LRAD was used as a weapon without reasonable notice and without providing a meaningful opportunity to disperse," the NLG wrote in its letter to Bratton, adding that the device was deployed "in circumstances where there was no imminent threat to public safety or property and where its use was not necessary to protect public safety or property."

The letter continues, "the NYPD’s uses of the LRAD were unjustified and unreasonable."

The appearance of the LRADs follows recent criticism of police militarization, which came after protesters in Ferguson, Missouri were assaulted with tear gas and rubber bullets by officers perched atop armored tanks, wielding rifles and batons. 

As Cohen says, the NYPD's sound cannons are an extension of the militarization trend, "part of the now ubiquitous sight of police officers in the United States wearing riot gear and driving tanks."

Gideon Oliver, a lawyer and co-author of the letter, told Gothamist that a sound cannon is not "a precision tool. This is an area-of-effect weapon."

"When the police use it, it’s not as if they’re just targeting one person," Oliver continued. "It’s indiscriminate like teargas."

Moreover, the sound cannons can hurt those not actively protesting. "The LRAD can cause hearing damage, and possible neurological damage, to anyone in its path. Particularly in New York City, anyone walking on the street or out of a building might end up in its path, and suffer short or long term health effects," Cohen said. "This is especially troubling for groups that might be at higher risk to hearing damage, such as children in the street, or mobility-impaired persons who might not be able to get out of the path of the LRAD fast enough to escape hearing damage."

As discovered through a Freedom of Information Law request filed by the NLG in 2012, the NYPD has had two of the devices since 2004 and has admitted to deploying them on multiple occasions—but still has no policies for their use.

The NLG called on Bratton to cease the department's use of LRADs until the devices have been tested for safety and guidelines for their use have been made and publicized.

Without such guidelines, the NLG says, the NYPD hands free rein to officers to injure, confuse, and control protesters and bystanders alike, giving the department "unbridled, unreviewable discretion to suppress protected speech and conduct.""

Source and Full Story

Here is the Letter