Skip to comments.
EPA in Contempt for Destroying Files
Associated Press ^
| 7/24/03
| JOHN HEILPRIN
Posted on 07/25/2003 6:43:55 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt Thursday for destroying computer files during the Clinton administration that had been sought by a conservative legal foundation.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered the EPA to pay the Landmark Legal Foundation's legal fees and costs because the agency disobeyed his order to preserve the electronic records of former chief Carol Browner.
Lamberth ordered the sanctions because he said the EPA had shown "contumacious conduct" - obstinate resistance to authority.
"This is a major victory for those who believe the EPA has an obligation to comply with the law," said Landmark President Mark Levin.
"The EPA destroyed vast databases that would have revealed the extent to which Carol Browner and other top officials worked with environmental groups to issue last-minute regulations prior to the end of the Clinton administration," he said.
Lamberth declined to hold Browner, two other EPA officials and the U.S. Attorney's Office in contempt.
Lamberth had issued a protective order on Jan. 19, 2001, the day before the Clinton administration ended, instructing the EPA to preserve all documents that might be relevant to a Freedom of Information Act request by Landmark for documents about the agency's contacts with outside groups.
Browner had testified she asked a technician to delete her computer files the same day Lamberth ordered them preserved.
The former EPA administrator said she usually didn't use her computer for work or e-mail, hadn't been notified about the court order, and had just wanted to remove some computer games her son had installed on her work computer.
Browner's attorney, Robert Trout, said his client had wanted to ensure her work computer was appropriately formatted for her successor in the Bush administration.
"As we've made clear from the outset, and as the facts plainly showed, there was never any basis whatsoever for Landmark's motion for contempt as to Ms. Browner," he said.
The EPA later acknowledged it had wiped clean the computer files from Browner and other top staff despite Lamberth's order.
The agency disclosed that in February and March 2001, the computer hard drives of several Clinton-era EPA officials had been reformatted, and between Jan. 19 and late April 2001, the e-mail backup tapes for their work computers - which are normally preserved for 90 days - had been erased and reused.
Lamberth noted the EPA had made some "too-little too-late efforts" to obey his order, including an EPA inspector general's investigation that succeeded in recovering some material from the reformatted hard drives. But the judge said a contempt finding was appropriate to show wrongdoing and prevent similar behavior in the future.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: browner; contempt; environment; epa; foia; landmark; marklevin; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
To: wcdukenfield
Well that's a hollow victory.
Nobody is personally penalized and the EPA has to pay costs....which means you and I pay the costs.
2
posted on
07/25/2003 6:47:36 AM PDT
by
RJCogburn
("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect."......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
To: wcdukenfield
Another example of how the Clinton's will NEVER have to answer for their crimes. Another one of Hildabeasts girlfriends gets away with crimes.
3
posted on
07/25/2003 6:50:12 AM PDT
by
laweeks
To: RJCogburn
Agreed. I wish the judge could have held Browner in contempt herself or thrown her ass into jail for a few days, but that's just wishful thinking.
She did it, they did it, because they knew -- just as you state -- that there was absolutely no way that they would suffer any sanction themselves.
4
posted on
07/25/2003 6:51:49 AM PDT
by
Ronin
(Qui tacet consentit!)
To: holdonnow
**Congrats ~~ Bump**
5
posted on
07/25/2003 6:57:11 AM PDT
by
TwoStep
(Ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever!)
To: wcdukenfield
The former EPA administrator said she usually didn't use her computer for work or e-mail, hadn't been notified about the court order, and had just wanted to remove some computer games her son had installed on her work computer.
Yeah, I'm buying that! < /sarcasm>
6
posted on
07/25/2003 7:11:59 AM PDT
by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: laweeks
The Clintons were but a symptom. The disease is the complacency of the electorate.
7
posted on
07/25/2003 7:13:41 AM PDT
by
The Duke
To: The Duke
Liberal Democrats associated with the Clintons are lying!?!?!? No....
8
posted on
07/25/2003 7:18:12 AM PDT
by
jfreif
To: RJCogburn
...and had just wanted to remove some computer games her son had installed on her work computer. What's wrong with this statement? If she just wanted to remove computer games, then how can uninstalling a game delete files of a totally different software? I see throught the lies. Obviously the moron judge didn't have a clue about computers. She should have been procecuted for negligence to the least.
9
posted on
07/25/2003 7:18:21 AM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(Two liberals don't make a right.)
To: wcdukenfield
The Clintoons and their underlings were a poc upon this country that will go down in history as the worst form of personal evil. They deserve their notorius "legacy".
10
posted on
07/25/2003 7:32:57 AM PDT
by
sandydipper
(Never quit - never surrender!)
To: The Duke
The Clintons were but a symptom. The disease is the complacency of the electorate. Hear! Hear! THERE is the truth, folks. The Clintons go unpunished because they are not the cause of these ills. They are but a reflection of this country, this country that elected them not once, but TWICE. Never, ever forget that.
MM
To: The Duke
You nailed it my friend. I never blame the Clintons directly for what they have done in this circus called America. Sure they were a disease waiting for conditions to be ripe in order to infect the host, but we always knew that they brought sickness and foul festering little toadies to do their bidding like Browner, Livingstone, Sid, Reno, and such. They just made us feel better about our pathetic failings and imperfections. They told us those flaws were right as rain. While we should have been working to improve as a species and society, the Clintons told us to be lazy, take it easy, don't be so hard on yourselves, I mean look at us, it's ok, and we let the disease ravage us unchecked.
12
posted on
07/25/2003 7:58:01 AM PDT
by
blackdog
(Who weeps for the tuna?)
To: m1-lightning
Oh, Lamberth knew wasss up. Of course he knew they were lying from before he even ordered the files saved. Why do you think he had to issue an order which orders them to comply with the law? It's like issuing an order requesting a cop to not rob a bank. A bit redundant huh?
Lamberth is tired and sick of the Clinton years. He, like many just wants to purge his system of their nonsense.
13
posted on
07/25/2003 8:05:14 AM PDT
by
blackdog
(Who weeps for the tuna?)
To: wcdukenfield
"This is a major victory for those who believe the EPA has an obligation to comply with the law," said Landmark President Mark Levin.Is that the same Mark Levin that hosts a radio show?
14
posted on
07/25/2003 8:05:27 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(Check out the FR Big Brother 4 thread! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/943368/posts)
To: wcdukenfield; holdonnow
Great work!
15
posted on
07/25/2003 8:06:22 AM PDT
by
Mo1
(Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
To: wcdukenfield
The former EPA administrator said she usually didn't use her computer for work or e-mail, hadn't been notified about the court order, and had just wanted to remove some computer games her son had installed on her work computer.Browner is a liar and a pig - - surprise, surprise! - - and a typical, corrupt Scumbag Administration minion. Until a judge has the guts to send a pig like Browner to REAL jail, this type of "contempt" will never end. Very, very disappointing.
To: jmc813
Yes. he is also a freeper.
To: Thud
ping
To: m1-lightning
Think about this.....
Imagine being a judge in the federal system and having anything on your docket which involves anyone from the Clinton Administration? I mean talk about wanting to call in sick? Dealing with them is like being a plumber who tries to fix exploding clogged toilets. Even getting near it has it's stench, risks, and it's an exercise in futility. Better to just nail the door shut and build a new bathroom.
The Clintons were artists at this. If your behavior was so outrageous, that being so bold, criminal, and in your face, questioning it in a public forum made the person doing so seem nuts. No president or first lady would be caught doing such unethical and contemptuous acts! No Governor would ever do such things. It's just proof of how low conservatives will go in order to ruin a fine man.
It's at least refreshing to hear Bush getting a raw deal on this yellow cake stuff. It's actually about something he's done in the course of his duties as president. It's not a blue dress, dead council dumped in a park, scam land deals, smarmy buds like McDougals, Jordan's, who hired the whitehouse chief of security?, snuffed Starbuck's interns, State troopers pimping, Danny Williams, oral sex, or condoms on the Christmas tree in the whitehouse.
For me, hearing about Bush's WMD and Yellow cake problems are damn refreshing.
19
posted on
07/25/2003 8:26:19 AM PDT
by
blackdog
(Who weeps for the tuna?)
To: wcdukenfield; Mo1; Ronin; TwoStep; The Duke; MississippiMan; blackdog; Grit; sandydipper; ...
".....sought by a conservative legal foundation." ~ AP
When the AP reports on the activities of the Marxist-left legal foundations, do they identify them as "leftist legal foundations"??
For instance -- do they identify George Soros, et.al., who funds all sorts of liberal political advocacy groups and radical activists (like Hillary and her VP running mate, Ramsey Clark) as a radical leftist? Riiiiight!!
http://www.capitalresearch.org/news/news.asp?ID=83&m=print Anyhow here is some history from google on this case:
2-1-02 Excerpt:
Landmark sues government over activist money
Landmark Legal Foundation has filed three lawsuits against government agencies to force them to release information about hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds paid to the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Wildlife Fund and other activist environmental groups.
The lawsuits, which have been filed against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USDA), were brought because the agencies failed to respond to earlier Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by Landmark. The Foundation sought the information after a Sacramento Bee article in October detailed how more than $400 million in federal grants and other payments since 1998 may have been misused or used to advance the political agendas of environmental activists. America's taxpayers have a right to know if their money is being used to feather the political nests of radical environmental groups, commented Landmark President Mark R. Levin. And the agencies of our government have a responsibility to ensure that the money it pays to private organizations is used appropriately, and not to lobby lawmakers or spin public perception to achieve the groups' political goals.
The complaints Landmark filed against the EPA, the BLM and the USDA are available on Landmark's Web site at
http://www.landmarklegal.org. Source:
http://grounds-mag.com/ar/grounds_maintenance_short_cuts_4/ Press Release - Landmark Legal Foundation - May 12, 1998
Landmark Legal Foundation Calls On Reno To Investigate Widespread EPA Abuses - Agency "out of control" under Browner's leadership
http://www.nwi.org/SpecialStudies/EPAReport/LLFrelease.html Press Release - Landmark Legal Foundation - January 19, 2001
Federal Court Grants Landmark's Preliminary Injunction Against EPA - Court Stops EPA From Removing Documents
http://www.pestlaw.com/x/press/2001/LLF-20010119A.html Landmark Legal Foundation Letter to EPA - January 23, 2001
http://www.pestlaw.com/x/courts/landmark02.html
20
posted on
07/25/2003 8:44:27 AM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Hey useful idiots! Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson