Tennessee bureaucrat: Water quality complaints could be considered ‘act of terrorism’ (not satire)

Unsatisfied with the quality of your water and eager to let the government know about it?

You might be a terrorist, according to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

“We take water quality very seriously. Very, very seriously,” deputy director of TDEC’s Division of Water Resources Sherwin Smith told a baffled and outraged audience in Maury County, Tennessee. “But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.”

Audience members saw the official’s answer as a means of deterring complaints from the public, according to a report in The Tennessean.

Meeting attendee Joycelene Johns said her water quality is so poor she “[prays] before the first sip.” But she said Smith simply didn’t want to address the problem. To her, the deputy director’s reply could be translated into a dismissal: ”Leave us alone. Don’t come back anymore. We’re not going to continue dealing with whatever problem you may have.”

Tennessee state Rep. Shelia Butt, who organized the meeting to address local water quality problems, frowned on Smith’s choice of words.

“I think that we need to be very careful with how we use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’” Butt said. “I thought it was out of context. That did not apply to anything that we were discussing at the meeting.”

Nine people have been arrested on terrorism charges in the Volunteer State since 2002, according to The Tennessean. All but one of those had their charges dismissed or were convicted on lesser charges.

Sherwin is a buttwart. But we do deal with jerks, not terrorists, at times. Here’s my comment from yesterday;

“The guy is a jerk! However,,,,,,,, We do get some off-the-wall complaints.

Years ago, we started doing tests for lead and copper. House directly across the street from the jerk, way below actionable limits. The jerk’s house, the same. Three years or so later, house across the street, way below actionable limits. The jerk’s? Over the moon! He complained to the EPA and the PUCO.
I went to investigate. He had remodeled the house. Did the plumbing himself, starting right at the meter. I asked to see the solder he used. Ancient roll, probably inherited from his grandfather. Not lead free! I explained to him that he had caused the problem, and there was nothing I could do about it.
He complained again to the EPA and PUCO. They came out to his house to meet. I was there. The guy brought out a new roll of lead-free solder, and told them that’s what he had used!
The EPA and PUCO believed me, as all twenty other test sites were well within compliance. The guy is a jerk, just like the Sherwin in Tennessee!”

Send her this.

I’m not in her district, or I would.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

5 U.S.C. 3331:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service...shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

5 U.S.C. 3333:
“...an individual who accepts office or employment in the government of the United States...shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.”

5 U.S.C. 7311 (1):
“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government...” [”advocate: to plead in favor of: defend by argument before a tribunal or the public; support or recommend publicly.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary] ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both”

Executive Order 10450 (in part):
Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in...the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States... it is hereby ordered as follows:

(a)The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment.. of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited to the following:

(4)Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.