JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,756
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #21
'Dodgy businessman'?
What fucking planet do you live on, where you presume the businessman is being dodgy instead of the over-grown Federali Mafia?
Meet Bill Ellen who has been thrown into prison for building duck ponds.
The 47-year-old eco-villain was convicted in January 1991 on five of six counts of violating Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act by destroying wetlands without a federal permit. Truly dastardly acts deserving of the harshest punishment say the green crusaders. Yes, filling a wetland is very serious stuff these days. It conjures up ugly images of greedy capitalists bulldozing the Everglades, dumping tons of mercury into pristine riparian ecosystems, or paving over the last aquatic habitat of the snowy egret and the furbish lousewort.
But that isn't what Ellen was doing. Indeed, Bill Ellen was creating wetlands. Yes, Bill Ellen was constructing a waterfowl sanctuary, complete with duck ponds, marshes, and wetland vegetation — on what was previously dry land. He was planning "to create duck heaven." For this "crime" he is now serving time in the federal slammer — as a wetland destroyer. Confusing? As we shall see, there is very little in the absurdly convoluted and muddled federal wetlands policies that isn't confusing.
Bill Ellen's troubles started in 1987 when he accepted a job creating wetlands on the 3,200 acre Maryland estate of wealthy New York commodities trader Paul Tudor Jones. Jones had in mind to create, as the centerpiece of his estate, a 103-acre wildlife sanctuary that would attract and support geese, ducks, and other wildlife. Ellen, a conservationist and marine engineer, was hired to supervise construction of the waterfowl habitat on uplands that were so dry water had to be sprayed on the soil as a dust suppressant when work crews began moving dirt around. Ellen consulted frequently with local, state, and federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Dorchester County Planning and Zoning Board. He obtained over two dozen permits and hired environmental consultants to complete ecological surveys of the property to make sure no wetlands were filled.
In 1989 the Bush Administration redefined wetlands. Overnight the total "wetland" area in Dorchester County jumped from 84,000 acres to 259,000 acres. Virtually the entire county had been declared a wetland. The Army Corps sent Jones a cease-and-desist order for all work at the estate. On March 3, 1989, Army Corps official Alex Dolgas and Soil and Conservation Service wetlands expert Jim Brewer visited the Jones estate and ordered all work shut down.
Ellen immediately shut down all work at the sanctuary except for construction on the management complex, a three-acre site where a couple of houses and a kennel were under construction. He pointed out to Dolgas and Brewer that Brewer had inspected the area only a month previously and had agreed that it did not contain wetlands. Work on the complex was already behind schedule and Ellen was facing penalties from architects and contractors if he delayed further. Ellen told the two regulators he could have another wetlands survey done by an independent consultant within 48 hours and would shut down work on the complex if the survey showed that the area did indeed include wetlands. But he did not want to shut down and break contractual obligations, only to find that the federal government's fickle paper shufflers had goofed again. (As the judge presiding over Ellen's trial noted: "The fact that a government employee says a permit is required does not necessarily make it so.")
According to Ellen, Dolgas wouldn't accept the offer for a new survey and "got in a huff, jumped back in his truck and left." Ellen went to a phone and called the landscape architect who was the overall supervisor of Jones' project. After talking to the architect and reconsidering the matter, Ellen decided to comply with the Corps order. He told the foreman to halt the project. It was too late. Two truckloads of clean fill dirt had already been dumped on the dry ground of the work site. That was enough to cost Ellen his freedom.
And there is more:But that isn't what Ellen was doing. Indeed, Bill Ellen was creating wetlands. Yes, Bill Ellen was constructing a waterfowl sanctuary, complete with duck ponds, marshes, and wetland vegetation — on what was previously dry land. He was planning "to create duck heaven." For this "crime" he is now serving time in the federal slammer — as a wetland destroyer. Confusing? As we shall see, there is very little in the absurdly convoluted and muddled federal wetlands policies that isn't confusing.
Bill Ellen's troubles started in 1987 when he accepted a job creating wetlands on the 3,200 acre Maryland estate of wealthy New York commodities trader Paul Tudor Jones. Jones had in mind to create, as the centerpiece of his estate, a 103-acre wildlife sanctuary that would attract and support geese, ducks, and other wildlife. Ellen, a conservationist and marine engineer, was hired to supervise construction of the waterfowl habitat on uplands that were so dry water had to be sprayed on the soil as a dust suppressant when work crews began moving dirt around. Ellen consulted frequently with local, state, and federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Dorchester County Planning and Zoning Board. He obtained over two dozen permits and hired environmental consultants to complete ecological surveys of the property to make sure no wetlands were filled.
In 1989 the Bush Administration redefined wetlands. Overnight the total "wetland" area in Dorchester County jumped from 84,000 acres to 259,000 acres. Virtually the entire county had been declared a wetland. The Army Corps sent Jones a cease-and-desist order for all work at the estate. On March 3, 1989, Army Corps official Alex Dolgas and Soil and Conservation Service wetlands expert Jim Brewer visited the Jones estate and ordered all work shut down.
Ellen immediately shut down all work at the sanctuary except for construction on the management complex, a three-acre site where a couple of houses and a kennel were under construction. He pointed out to Dolgas and Brewer that Brewer had inspected the area only a month previously and had agreed that it did not contain wetlands. Work on the complex was already behind schedule and Ellen was facing penalties from architects and contractors if he delayed further. Ellen told the two regulators he could have another wetlands survey done by an independent consultant within 48 hours and would shut down work on the complex if the survey showed that the area did indeed include wetlands. But he did not want to shut down and break contractual obligations, only to find that the federal government's fickle paper shufflers had goofed again. (As the judge presiding over Ellen's trial noted: "The fact that a government employee says a permit is required does not necessarily make it so.")
According to Ellen, Dolgas wouldn't accept the offer for a new survey and "got in a huff, jumped back in his truck and left." Ellen went to a phone and called the landscape architect who was the overall supervisor of Jones' project. After talking to the architect and reconsidering the matter, Ellen decided to comply with the Corps order. He told the foreman to halt the project. It was too late. Two truckloads of clean fill dirt had already been dumped on the dry ground of the work site. That was enough to cost Ellen his freedom.
Bill Ellen used to be the state environmental engineer who regulated wetlands. He ran a nonprofit wildlife rescue center and had been hired to convert part of an estate into a 103-acre wildlife sanctuary when he ran afoul of permit regulations. But he wasn’t draining or filling wetlands—he was building them! The sanctuary was adding 45 acres of duck ponds. Ellen wasn’t trying to evade government regulations; he had already obtained 38(!) permits and thought he was doing everything properly. But he was sentenced to six months in jail for dumping two loads of dirt on a portion of the property that the U.S. Soil Conservation Service had previously declared a non-wetland. A U.S. Corps of Engineers official using an expanded definition of “wetland” from a new government manual—so new it wasn’t even in effect yet—declared Ellen guilty. He ended up being sentenced to 6 months in jail for a regulatory standard that didn’t even exist at the time of his actions.
Historically, Anglo-American jurisprudence required a guilty act (“actus rea”) be accompanied by an awareness that the act is wrong (“mens rea” in Latin, literally meaning “guilty mind”) for there to be a crime. However, the federal government has increasingly imposed criminal penalties under what is known as “strict liability” laws. Bill Ellen’s experience cited above is an example; clearly he did not know he was doing anything wrong.
Another example of criminal conviction lacking mens rea is the case of Abner Schoenwetter. He spent six years in a U.S. federal prison for violating an obscure Honduran regulation by packaging lobsters with plastic instead of cardboard. Under the Lacey Act, it is illegal for an American citizen to violate any fish or wildlife regulation of another nation. A reform measure, recently introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, which would provide protection from this sort of injustice by a default “mens rea” rule has been opposed by President Obama.
The federal government’s criminalization of human behavior continues to increase with no sign of it stopping, much less reversing. Our Constitution has been violated so often and so extensively that it no longer protects our rights and freedom as was intended. The growth and exercise of federal power has become so commonplace as to be viewed as acceptable or inevitable and render the Constitution irrelevant to the power structure in Washington. The Constitution mentions only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Does anyone involved in creating the hundreds and hundreds of new federal crimes really care that they have no justification under the Constitution?
The Constitution grants the federal government only certain powers enumerated in that document. All others are reserved to the states or to the people under Article 10. The enumerated powers grant the federal government no power to print paper money, regulate the economy, establish a central bank (the Federal Reserve), provide housing, food stamps or many other things in which federal involvement is now widely accepted public policy. These abuses of federal power will never be corrected by the elected leaders in Washington who created them or their successors who continue to benefit from them politically.
Historically, Anglo-American jurisprudence required a guilty act (“actus rea”) be accompanied by an awareness that the act is wrong (“mens rea” in Latin, literally meaning “guilty mind”) for there to be a crime. However, the federal government has increasingly imposed criminal penalties under what is known as “strict liability” laws. Bill Ellen’s experience cited above is an example; clearly he did not know he was doing anything wrong.
Another example of criminal conviction lacking mens rea is the case of Abner Schoenwetter. He spent six years in a U.S. federal prison for violating an obscure Honduran regulation by packaging lobsters with plastic instead of cardboard. Under the Lacey Act, it is illegal for an American citizen to violate any fish or wildlife regulation of another nation. A reform measure, recently introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, which would provide protection from this sort of injustice by a default “mens rea” rule has been opposed by President Obama.
The federal government’s criminalization of human behavior continues to increase with no sign of it stopping, much less reversing. Our Constitution has been violated so often and so extensively that it no longer protects our rights and freedom as was intended. The growth and exercise of federal power has become so commonplace as to be viewed as acceptable or inevitable and render the Constitution irrelevant to the power structure in Washington. The Constitution mentions only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Does anyone involved in creating the hundreds and hundreds of new federal crimes really care that they have no justification under the Constitution?
The Constitution grants the federal government only certain powers enumerated in that document. All others are reserved to the states or to the people under Article 10. The enumerated powers grant the federal government no power to print paper money, regulate the economy, establish a central bank (the Federal Reserve), provide housing, food stamps or many other things in which federal involvement is now widely accepted public policy. These abuses of federal power will never be corrected by the elected leaders in Washington who created them or their successors who continue to benefit from them politically.
And yet more.
So no, I think that the 'dodgy businessman is very likely telling the 100% Gods honest Truth in the matter.
