/PRNewswire/ -- Federal district court Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has issued a comprehensive ruling that an industrial wind energy facility in Greenbrier County, West Virginia will kill and injure endangered Indiana bats, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court concluded that "the development of wind energy can and should be encouraged, but wind turbines must be good neighbors." This is the first federal court ruling in the country finding a wind power project in violation of federal environmental law, and it highlights the critical importance of balancing the creation of renewable energy and protection of endangered wildlife species under the ESA.
The court recognized that "the two vital federal policies at issue in this case are not necessarily in conflict" because defendants Invenergy and Beech Ridge Energy could have sought a permit under the ESA which would "allow their project to proceed in harmony with the goal of avoidance of harm to endangered species." The ESA provides for the issuance of permits that authorize projects in endangered species habitat, but only when the United States Fish and Wildlife Service attaches strict and enforceable conditions designed to minimize the impact on imperiled species.
In finding a violation of the ESA, the court held, based on extensive expert testimony and other evidence, "that, like death and taxes, there is a virtual certainty that Indiana bats will be harmed, wounded, or killed imminently by the Beech Ridge Project in violation of ... the ESA, during the spring, summer, and fall." Accordingly, the court held "that the only avenue available to Defendants to resolve the self-imposed plight in which they now find themselves is to do belatedly that which they should have done long ago: apply for a permit" under the ESA.
In holding that the project is "certain to imminently harm, kill, or wound Indiana bats," the court relied heavily on testimony by leading bat biologists Dr. Thomas Kunz of Boston University, Dr. Michael Gannon of Penn State, and Dr. Lynn Robbins of Missouri State University. Dr. Kunz - whom the court has described as the "leading expert in the field of bat ecology in the United States" - testified that the project will not only kill endangered Indiana bats, but may kill more than a quarter of a million bats overall, including species already being decimated by threats such as the devastating disease known as white-nose syndrome.
Plaintiffs in the case - the Animal Welfare Institute, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and caving enthusiast Dave Cowan - applauded the court's ruling.
"As this nation embraces renewable energy which all of the plaintiffs support, it is critical that such projects be undertaken consistent with federal law to ensure that our rush to develop a green energy future doesn't jeopardize imperiled species," said D.J. Schubert, a wildlife biologist with the Animal Welfare Institute. "In this decision, the court sends an unequivocal message that the 'green energy' label does not exempt wind power from compliance with federal laws protecting wildlife and the environment," added William Eubanks, an attorney with Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal which represented plaintiffs in this case. "Indeed, other wind power companies are complying with the ESA permitting process, the Congressionally mandated vehicle for minimizing harm to listed species."
The court enjoined the construction of any additional wind turbines and prohibited the operation of all existing turbines between April 1 and November 15 until an Incidental Take Permit is obtained. Operating the existing turbines between November 16 and March 31 is not likely to impact Indiana bats since they hibernate during the winter months. Per an earlier agreement between the parties and the court, 40 of the 122 planned wind turbines have been erected to date, and those are generally farthest from known winter populations of Indiana bats.
"We do not oppose responsible development of renewable energy projects be they wind farms, solar farms, or tidal energy projects but there must be independent federal regulation of these project to avoid unintentional consequences to protected species," said John Stroud, spokesperson for Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy. "This court has made clear to Beech Ridge and its parent company, Invenergy, that the ESA has teeth, that the Indiana bat will be harmed by this project, and that these companies don't get a free pass to violate the ESA," said Dave Cowan, an avid spelunker who has explored many of West Virginia's caves.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label ruling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ruling. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Court Orders Fur False Advertising Case to Proceed Against Major Retailers
The District of Columbia Superior Court issued a long-awaited ruling clearing the way for a lawsuit accusing several of the nation's largest retailers — including Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue — of engaging in false advertising and mislabeling of fur garments. The suit was filed in 2008 by The Humane Society of the United States, arguing that these deceptive practices mislead consumers into unknowingly purchasing animal fur products and increase consumer confusion over the type and origin of fur used on clothing.
"Consumers have a right to know what they're buying, but many major retailers keep selling 'faux fur' jackets that turn out to be real animal fur," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for The HSUS. "Macy's, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Lord & Taylor just don't seem to care if consumers are deceived, even though real fur is something many consumers are determined to avoid."
Over the last three years, The HSUS has identified dozens of falsely advertised or falsely labeled fur garments across the retail industry. Although many of these garments were advertised or labeled as "faux fur," they were often fur from raccoon dogs, a member of the canine family native to parts of Asia, who have been documented to be skinned alive in China.
The lawsuit — filed under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act — alleges that the companies "misrepresent" the characteristics of the fur-trimmed garments by (1) advertising and labeling products as "faux fur," when they are, in fact, derived from real animal fur or (2) advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur when they are, in fact, made from the wholly distinct species of raccoon dog — a member of the dog family. The complaint also alleges violations of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which also prohibit the false advertising and mislabeling of any fur product.
To view the complaint, learn about raccoon dogs and their mistreatment, and more, visit humanesociety.org/furfree.
Examples of Defendants' Deceptive Ads and Labels:
In December 2008, Lord & Taylor sold jackets labeled as "polyester" fur at its retail store in Kensington, Md. Testing found that this purportedly faux fur garment was actually made from real raccoon dog and rabbit.
Macy's – through its retail division, Bloomingdale's – advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket on its online store in 2007 and again in 2008. However, both of these jackets contained animal fur.
In November 2008, Neiman Marcus sold a coat on its Web site, that although advertised as "faux fur," was genuine rabbit fur. Neiman Marcus also sold a jacket labeled as fake "polyester" fur at its retail store in McLean, Va. Testing later found this jacket to be made from real raccoon dog.
In December 2007, Saks Fifth Avenue advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket through its online store that was later determined to be genuine rabbit fur.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Consumers have a right to know what they're buying, but many major retailers keep selling 'faux fur' jackets that turn out to be real animal fur," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for The HSUS. "Macy's, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Lord & Taylor just don't seem to care if consumers are deceived, even though real fur is something many consumers are determined to avoid."
Over the last three years, The HSUS has identified dozens of falsely advertised or falsely labeled fur garments across the retail industry. Although many of these garments were advertised or labeled as "faux fur," they were often fur from raccoon dogs, a member of the canine family native to parts of Asia, who have been documented to be skinned alive in China.
The lawsuit — filed under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act — alleges that the companies "misrepresent" the characteristics of the fur-trimmed garments by (1) advertising and labeling products as "faux fur," when they are, in fact, derived from real animal fur or (2) advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur when they are, in fact, made from the wholly distinct species of raccoon dog — a member of the dog family. The complaint also alleges violations of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which also prohibit the false advertising and mislabeling of any fur product.
To view the complaint, learn about raccoon dogs and their mistreatment, and more, visit humanesociety.org/furfree.
Examples of Defendants' Deceptive Ads and Labels:
In December 2008, Lord & Taylor sold jackets labeled as "polyester" fur at its retail store in Kensington, Md. Testing found that this purportedly faux fur garment was actually made from real raccoon dog and rabbit.
Macy's – through its retail division, Bloomingdale's – advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket on its online store in 2007 and again in 2008. However, both of these jackets contained animal fur.
In November 2008, Neiman Marcus sold a coat on its Web site, that although advertised as "faux fur," was genuine rabbit fur. Neiman Marcus also sold a jacket labeled as fake "polyester" fur at its retail store in McLean, Va. Testing later found this jacket to be made from real raccoon dog.
In December 2007, Saks Fifth Avenue advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket through its online store that was later determined to be genuine rabbit fur.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, March 23, 2009
Federal Court Rules FDA Must Reconsider Plan B Decision
/PRNewswire / -- Today, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to limit over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B to women over 18, ruling that it was based on politics and ideology, rather than science. The court ordered the agency to reconsider its decision. It also ordered the FDA to act within 30 days to extend over-the-counter access, which is currently limited to 18 year olds and over, to 17 year olds.
"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the suit against the FDA.
"The message is clear -- the FDA should put medical science first and leave politics at the lab door. We are encouraged that the agency, now under new leadership, will take that message to heart."
The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in 2005 for failing to grant over-the-counter status to Plan B against the advice of scientific experts and in violation of its own procedures and regulations. In 2006, the FDA agreed to make Plan B available without a prescription, but only to women over 18 and only behind the pharmacy counter. The Center continued to pursue its lawsuit, Tummino v. von Eschenbach, to ensure that Plan B would be granted true over-the-counter status and made available to all women, including young women who might benefit most from this form of contraception.
"According to the FDA's own rules, the only legitimate criteria for making a drug available without a prescription are safety and efficacy," said Northup. "Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, all women -- including young women for whom the barriers and the benefits are so great -- are one step closer to having the access they need and deserve."
The Court found that the FDA "acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure," "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures," and engaged in "repeated and unreasonable delays." In addition, the court found that the FDA's justification for denying over-the-counter access to 17 year olds "lacks all credibility," and was based on "fanciful and wholly unsubstantiated 'enforcement' concerns."
Before its action on Plan B, the FDA had never restricted a non-prescription drug based on a person's age, nor had the Bush Administration ever been consulted by the FDA about an over-the-counter drug application. Depositions of senior FDA officials by the Center in 2006 indicated that the Bush Administration sought to unduly influence the agency during the Plan B application review process. Testimony also indicated that officials involved in the decision-making process were concerned about losing their jobs if they did not follow the Administration's political directives.
Other evidence uncovered during the lawsuit showed that the agency repeatedly departed from its own established procedures during the FDA case, from filling the reproductive health committee with political "operatives" to making a decision to reject over-the-counter access to Plan B before completion of the standard review.
The Center's battle to make Plan B available over-the-counter to women of all ages began in 2001, when it filed a citizens' petition with the FDA on behalf of over 70 medical and public health organizations to grant the drug over-the-counter status. On January 21, 2005, the Center filed Tummino v. von Eschenbach in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; individuals from a grassroots advocacy group, the Morning-After Pill Conspiracy; and parents who seek over-the-counter access for their daughters. On March 30, 2007, the Center asked for summary judgment in the case, arguing that the evidence gathered during discovery made it unnecessary for the court to hold a trial and that the court should order the agency to make Plan B available without a prescription to all women.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the suit against the FDA.
"The message is clear -- the FDA should put medical science first and leave politics at the lab door. We are encouraged that the agency, now under new leadership, will take that message to heart."
The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in 2005 for failing to grant over-the-counter status to Plan B against the advice of scientific experts and in violation of its own procedures and regulations. In 2006, the FDA agreed to make Plan B available without a prescription, but only to women over 18 and only behind the pharmacy counter. The Center continued to pursue its lawsuit, Tummino v. von Eschenbach, to ensure that Plan B would be granted true over-the-counter status and made available to all women, including young women who might benefit most from this form of contraception.
"According to the FDA's own rules, the only legitimate criteria for making a drug available without a prescription are safety and efficacy," said Northup. "Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, all women -- including young women for whom the barriers and the benefits are so great -- are one step closer to having the access they need and deserve."
The Court found that the FDA "acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure," "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures," and engaged in "repeated and unreasonable delays." In addition, the court found that the FDA's justification for denying over-the-counter access to 17 year olds "lacks all credibility," and was based on "fanciful and wholly unsubstantiated 'enforcement' concerns."
Before its action on Plan B, the FDA had never restricted a non-prescription drug based on a person's age, nor had the Bush Administration ever been consulted by the FDA about an over-the-counter drug application. Depositions of senior FDA officials by the Center in 2006 indicated that the Bush Administration sought to unduly influence the agency during the Plan B application review process. Testimony also indicated that officials involved in the decision-making process were concerned about losing their jobs if they did not follow the Administration's political directives.
Other evidence uncovered during the lawsuit showed that the agency repeatedly departed from its own established procedures during the FDA case, from filling the reproductive health committee with political "operatives" to making a decision to reject over-the-counter access to Plan B before completion of the standard review.
The Center's battle to make Plan B available over-the-counter to women of all ages began in 2001, when it filed a citizens' petition with the FDA on behalf of over 70 medical and public health organizations to grant the drug over-the-counter status. On January 21, 2005, the Center filed Tummino v. von Eschenbach in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; individuals from a grassroots advocacy group, the Morning-After Pill Conspiracy; and parents who seek over-the-counter access for their daughters. On March 30, 2007, the Center asked for summary judgment in the case, arguing that the evidence gathered during discovery made it unnecessary for the court to hold a trial and that the court should order the agency to make Plan B available without a prescription to all women.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Government Again Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey's Los Angeles-based non-profit autism organization, today announced that the United States Government has once again conceded that vaccines cause autism. The announcement comes on the heels of the recently unsealed court case of Bailey Banks vs. HHS. The ruling states, "The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine...a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to PDD [Autism]."
In a curious and hypocritical method of operation, the mysterious Vaccine Court not only protects vaccine makers from liability but supports a policy that has tripled the number of vaccines given to U.S. children - all after being made aware of the fact that these vaccines do, in fact, cause autism and repeatedly ruling in favor of families with children hurt by their vaccines.
"It was heartbreaking to hear about Bailey's story, but through this ruling we are gaining the proof we need to open the eyes of the world to the fact that vaccines do, in fact, cause autism," said Jenny McCarthy, Hollywood actress, autism activist, best-selling author and Generation Rescue board member. "Bailey Banks' regression into autism after vaccination is the same story I went through with my own son and the same story I have heard from thousands of mothers and fathers around the country. Our hope is that this ruling will influence decision and policy-makers to help the hundreds of thousands of children and families affected by this terrible condition."
Banks vs. HHS is the second known case where the Vaccine Court could not deny the overwhelming evidence showing vaccines caused a child's autism. The first was the case of Hannah Poling in March of 2008, where the court found in her favor and awarded her family compensation.
Jim Carrey, Hollywood legend and Generation Rescue board member, reacted to the news, "It seems the U.S. government is sending mixed messages by telling the world that vaccines don't cause autism, while, at the same time, they are quietly managing a separate 'vaccine court' that is ruling in favor of affected families and finding that vaccines, in fact, were the cause. For most of the autism community the question is no longer whether vaccines caused of their child's autism. The question is why is their government only promoting the rulings that are in favor of the vaccine companies."
Why is a secret court, which no one knows about or understands, quietly paying these families for vaccine injuries and autism? Deirdre Imus, Generation Rescue board member and founder of the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology says, "Over the past 20 years, the vaccine court has dispensed close to $2 billion in compensation to families whose children were injured or killed by a vaccine. I am not against vaccines and my own child has been vaccinated. But, I share the growing concerns of many parents questioning the number of vaccines given to children today, some of the toxic ingredients in vaccines, and whether we know enough about the combination risks associated with the multiple vaccines given to children during critical developmental windows."
Generation Rescue seeks to answer these questions and many more on a daily basis as they fight for the truth and to recover children with autism around the world. To learn more please visit www.generationrescue.org, write to media@generationrescue.com .
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
In a curious and hypocritical method of operation, the mysterious Vaccine Court not only protects vaccine makers from liability but supports a policy that has tripled the number of vaccines given to U.S. children - all after being made aware of the fact that these vaccines do, in fact, cause autism and repeatedly ruling in favor of families with children hurt by their vaccines.
"It was heartbreaking to hear about Bailey's story, but through this ruling we are gaining the proof we need to open the eyes of the world to the fact that vaccines do, in fact, cause autism," said Jenny McCarthy, Hollywood actress, autism activist, best-selling author and Generation Rescue board member. "Bailey Banks' regression into autism after vaccination is the same story I went through with my own son and the same story I have heard from thousands of mothers and fathers around the country. Our hope is that this ruling will influence decision and policy-makers to help the hundreds of thousands of children and families affected by this terrible condition."
Banks vs. HHS is the second known case where the Vaccine Court could not deny the overwhelming evidence showing vaccines caused a child's autism. The first was the case of Hannah Poling in March of 2008, where the court found in her favor and awarded her family compensation.
Jim Carrey, Hollywood legend and Generation Rescue board member, reacted to the news, "It seems the U.S. government is sending mixed messages by telling the world that vaccines don't cause autism, while, at the same time, they are quietly managing a separate 'vaccine court' that is ruling in favor of affected families and finding that vaccines, in fact, were the cause. For most of the autism community the question is no longer whether vaccines caused of their child's autism. The question is why is their government only promoting the rulings that are in favor of the vaccine companies."
Why is a secret court, which no one knows about or understands, quietly paying these families for vaccine injuries and autism? Deirdre Imus, Generation Rescue board member and founder of the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology says, "Over the past 20 years, the vaccine court has dispensed close to $2 billion in compensation to families whose children were injured or killed by a vaccine. I am not against vaccines and my own child has been vaccinated. But, I share the growing concerns of many parents questioning the number of vaccines given to children today, some of the toxic ingredients in vaccines, and whether we know enough about the combination risks associated with the multiple vaccines given to children during critical developmental windows."
Generation Rescue seeks to answer these questions and many more on a daily basis as they fight for the truth and to recover children with autism around the world. To learn more please visit www.generationrescue.org, write to media@generationrescue.com .
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
