Carol Overland - Legalectric

Syndicate content
Carol A. Overland, Overland Law Office -- Utility Regulatory and Land Use Advocacy
Updated: 1 hour 8 min ago

Dept. of Health & 3M’s PFC/PFOA contamination

Tue, 08/23/2016 - 11:03am

(click for larger version)

3M has gotten away with poisoning the water of Minnesota, and the Dept. of Health has taken some protective and/or remedial measures, but it’s not nearly enough.  Isn’t it a wake-up call that we need a “Drinking Water Health Advisory” in this Land of 10,000 Lakes? Minnesota’s “Pollution Control Agency” has not been proactive on this, and we’ve known about 3M’s contamination for how long?  This is why we need the EPA!  The EPA is leading the charge, and Minnesota’s Department of Health (MDH), as above, has “responded” to the EPA Advisories.

80 Washington County homes will get bottled water as state reviews new pollution rules

In part:

Eighty households in Washington County will get bottled water and state-funded filtration systems because their drinking water exceeds a new federal safety standard for industrial chemicals that have long contaminated groundwater in the area.

In addition, state regulators will sample 400 to 500 wells within the area of contamination in coming months and issue additional drinking water advisories as needed.

The Dept. of Health page:

MDH Response to EPA Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA

From the EPA’s page:

Basic Information Technical Information Provisional Health Advisories and Draft Health Effects Documents Technical documents Peer Review


Categories: Citizens

Protesting, defending 2nd Amendment rights?

Mon, 08/22/2016 - 11:48am

Can’t make this stuff up.  I wish they’d read their “pocket Constitution” and amendments.  How is NAACP related to their 2nd Amendment rights?  Let’s see a 1,000 word essay, due tomorrow!

Yesterday there are armed white folks in Houston, Texas, sporting guns and waving Confederate flags:

“Obviously we’re exercising our Second Amendment rights but that’s because we have to defend ourselves. Their organizations and their people are shooting people based on the color of their skin. We’re not. We definitely will defend ourselves, but we’re not out here to start any problems.”

Really… It’s a crucial distinction that they’re talking about “2nd Amendment rights” and not “1st Amendment rights” here, that their focus is on guns, and not speech.  At what point is inflammatory “speech” of flags and open carry in front of NAACP headquarters criminal incitement or terroristic threats?

Notice the “14 WORDS” sign.  Those “14 WORDS” are a fundamental slogan of white supremacists, originally from David Lane, The Order, The Silent Brotherhood, Bruders Schweigen: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”  He also authored the “88 Precepts” while in jail serving his 190 year sentence.  Words like this should not be taken lightly.  The actions of Lane’s group included the machine-gun mowing down of Alan Berg, Jewish radio talk show host, armored car robberies and counterfeiting, racketeering, and conspiracy.  He died in jail.

Incitement is a difficult concept, much is allowed, and in reviewing Constitutional law on incitement, the key is to be vague, to use inference, to speak of possibilities, and that’s OK.  Urges to action NOW is another matter.  So thus far, these “protesters” (again, what exactly are they “protesting?”) seem to be within bounds, unlike Drumpf (one protester yesterday was wearing a Trump hat), who has gone over the edge with direct, targeted incitement:

Is Donald Trump inciting violence? He might be. – Slate  What about terroristic threats?  In Texas: Texas Penal Code § 22.07. Terroristic Threat

(a)  A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;

(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;

(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;

(5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury;  or

(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense:

(1) is committed against a member of the person’s family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence;  or

(2) is committed against a public servant.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) is a felony of the third degree.

(f) In this section:

(1) “Family” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.003, Family Code.

(2) “Family violence” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.004, Family Code.

(3) “Household” has the meaning assigned by Section 71.005, Family Code.

(g) For purposes of Subsection (d), the amount of pecuniary loss is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room, place, or conveyance.

I’d be afraid to go to work that day if I worked at NAACP HQ, but likely they’re closed on Sunday, so that threat charge is then likely dodged.

Are the many people in the U.S. killed lately by white supremacists being considered, is it being taken into account?

How is the NAACP related to the protesters 2nd Amendment rights?  Houston, we have a problem…

Categories: Citizens


Sun, 08/21/2016 - 10:59am

In the inbox today from an activist cohort, a poem by Thomas Lux:

Cucumber Fields Crossed by High Tension Wires

The high-tension spires spike the sky
beneath which boys bend
to pick from prickly vines
the deep-sopped fruit, the rind’s green
a green sunk
in green. They part the plants’ leaves,
reach into the nest,
and pull out mother, father, fat Uncle Phil.
The smaller yellow-green children stay,
for now. The fruit goes
in baskets by the side of the row,
every thirty feet or so. By these bushels
the boys get paid, in cash,
at day’s end, this summer
of the last days of the empire
that will become known as
the past, adios, then,
the ragged-edged beautiful blink.

What surprises me is when someone notices transmission, and in this case, Lux is jarred enough to think and write about it.  It’s such a common part of our landscape that most people don’t notice it… that is, most people don’t notice it until they’re affected, and suddenly wake up to the reality of transmission, criss-crossing our country with its insidious web, noticing that it’s EVERYWHERE!  Once your eyes are opened to transmission, it’s impossible to disregard.

Categories: Citizens

DOE and SWPA sued in Federal Court

Tue, 08/16/2016 - 11:52am

YES!!!  On to federal court!!!  I love it when this happens!  Downwind and Golden Bridge have sued the Department of Energy (DOE) and Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA)!  Here’s a copy of the Complaint, give it a read:

Downwind, LLC & GoldenBridge LLC-v-DOE & SWPA – Case 3:16-cv-00207

Here’s the bottom line, what they’re asking for:

It’s focused on the DOE and Clean Line’s most vulnerable issues, those of improper potential use of eminent domain for private purpose and private company, and, as David Ulery says:

“Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE’s review of Clean Line’s application,” he said. “An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level.”

Clean Line and the DOE were asked, demanded, expected, to provide due process, and nope, nada, not the most basic opportunities to participate.  Seems they’ve never heard of due process — how dare they!  From June, 2015, here are multiple filings demanding due process:

BLOCK Plains & Eastern Clean Line docket filings

Here’s the first of articles to appear about the federal suit:

Opponents sue to block Clean Line project

By John LyonArkansas News

LITTLE ROCK — Opponents of a planned transmission line across Arkansas and parts of Oklahoma and Tennessee said Friday they have filed a federal lawsuit objecting to the U.S. Department of Energy’s participation in the project.

Golden Bridge and Downwind, two organizations representing landowners who oppose the Plains & Eastern Clean Line project, said they filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Little Rock. The suit was not available on the court’s website Monday evening, and the groups did not immediately provide a copy to the Arkansas News Bureau.

According to a news release, the suit challenges the legality of the Department of Energy’s decision to participate in the project under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, which allows the agency to partner with private companies on some energy infrastructure projects.

“While understanding the importance of infrastructure in the production, transmission and distribution of electrical energy, the landowner-managed organization is concerned with the federal government’s legal authority, and the scope and manner of its proposed participation in transmission projects pursuant to Section 1222,” Downwind said in the release.

“There are lingering doubts about the substance and merits of the department’s determination in this project, with particular concern relating to the potential use of federal eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit of a private, for-profit company,” the organization said.

The suit also alleges that landowners should have had more ability to participate in the department’s review of the application for the project by Clean Line Energy Partners of Houston, according to Dave Ulery of Golden Bridge.

“Landowners were never offered an appropriate avenue for due process during the DOE’s review of Clean Line’s application,” he said. “An opportunity to comment is not the same as an opportunity to directly participate in the matter in an official capacity. Review is meaningless if those most affected are not given ample and significant opportunity to engage on a meaningful and substantive level.”

Clean Line Energy Partners Executive Vice President Mario Hurtado said Monday he had not seen the suit and could not comment on it specifically.

Hurtado said in a statement, “It’s no secret that the United States suffers from an infrastructure deficit and that we must push through gridlock to move the country forward. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see legal complaints filed against the most important infrastructure projects. In order to modernize the grid, enable the delivery of low-cost energy, create new jobs and enhance our energy security, the private and public sectors must come together to bring new infrastructure projects to fruition.”

The $2 billion transmission line is expected to transmit 4,000 megawatts of wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle to distribution centers in Arkansas and Tennessee, with Arkansas receiving 500 megawatts of that energy. Arkansas’ congressional delegation opposes the project, and Rep. Steve Womack, R-Rogers, has filed a bill to kill it.

Womack’s bill cleared the House Natural Resources Committee in June.

Categories: Citizens

Speaking of DoJ Investigations, Sheriff Arpaio’s nailed

Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:22pm

There are too many people who think Sheriff Joe Arpaio walks on water.  Horrifying.  Thankfully, at long last, Arpaio is in trouble, deep, deep trouble, not just legally, but he’s probably going to loose the his bid for re-election, and may be sent to jail.  Can’t happen soon enough.

New poll shows Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in a tight re-election race Another poll shows Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a tight general election race New poll has Penzone leading Arpaio in race for sheriff Could Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cost John McCain His Senate Seat?

The Department of Justice investigation is moving forward, lawsuits abound, and Arpaio is losing, found in contempt of court for violating the court’s injunction.

Arizona’s Sheriff Joe hit with 1st round of punishments in contempt case

And on a parallel front, the Department of Justice is moving forward to document his many violations of the Constitution and federal law, and to shut him down, hold Maricopa County responsible, and that’s good.   About time!  Here are their links:

And in federal court:

This guy needs to be OUT of office and thrown in jail.  The magnitude of his racist and blatantly unconstitutional policies and actions has been exposed, and must stop — despite the court ordered injunction, he continues…  Here’s hoping the judge does push for a criminal contempt case against Arpaio.  And once he’s gone, the entire Sheriff’s Office needs to be rebuilt.  Whew, that’s a big job.

Categories: Citizens

DOJ Report on Baltimore Police — FAIL!

Mon, 08/15/2016 - 10:34am

THIS IS A MUST READ!  Apologies for the delay… Trying to catch up, this was released and I got bogged down in something else.

DOJ Report – Baltimore_Police_Department

It’s grim.  For those questioning all the complaints regarding Baltimore police, just a scan of the table of contents is enlightening:


And the conclusion:


From the report:

The constitutional violations described in our findings result in part from critical deficiencies in BPD’s systems to train, equip, supervise, and hold officers accountable, and to build relationships with the broader Baltimore community. First, BPD fails to adequately supervise its officers. This lack of supervision manifests itself in multiple ways, including a failure to guide officer activity through effective policies and training; a failure to collect and analyze reliable data to supervise officer enforcement activities; and the lack of a meaningful early intervention system (EIS) to identify officers who may benefit from additional training or other guidance to ensure that they do not commit constitutional violations. Second, BPD lacks meaningful accountability systems to deter misconduct. BPD does not consistently classify, investigate, adjudicate, and document complaints of misconduct according to its own policies and accepted law enforcement standards. Indeed, we found that BPD personnel sometimes discourage complaints from being filed and frequently conduct little or no investigation—even of serious misconduct allegations. As a result, a culture resistant to accountability persists throughout much of BPD, and many officers are reluctant to report misconduct for fear that doing so is fruitless and may provoke retaliation. Third, BPD fails to have proper agreements in place to coordinate its activities with other agencies that are operating within its jurisdiction. Fourth, BPD fails to adequately support its officers through effective strategies for recruitment, retention, and staffing patterns, and does not provide them with appropriate technology and equipment. Fifth, BPD does not engage effectively with the community it polices. BPD’s failure to use accepted community policing strategies and transparency mechanisms erodes the community trust that is central to productive law enforcement.


And the conclusion?

For the foregoing reasons, the Department of Justice concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law. The pattern or practice includes: (1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests; (2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans; (3) using excessive force; and (4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression. We also identified concerns regarding BPD’s transport of individuals and investigation of sexual assaults. BPD’s failings result from deficient policies, training, oversight, and accountability, and policing strategies that do not engage effectively with the community the Department serves. We are heartened to find both widespread recognition of these challenges and strong interest in reform. We look forward to working with the Department, City leadership, and Baltimore’s diverse communities to create lasting reforms that rebuild trust in BPD and ensure that it provides effective, constitutional police services to the people of Baltimore.

So what’s going to happen?  Oh, Baltimore…


Other Department of Justice investigations of law enforcement HERE

Categories: Citizens

Illinois Court rules against RICL xmsn

Thu, 08/11/2016 - 10:49pm

Yesterday, the Illinois 3rd District Appellate Court said a resounding “NO!” to the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL).  Illinois Landowners Alliance challenged the PSC decision and WON!

Appellate Decision_8-10-2016_3150099

This court order reversed the Illinois PSC’s approval of the line, and directs the PSC to issue an order in line with the court’s decision.  Most important was that the court held that the PSC had erred in its determination that the RICL applicant was a utility!

… and…

… and…

… and…

I love it when this happens!!!


Categories: Citizens

Xcel Rate Case Comments due TOMORROW!

Tue, 08/09/2016 - 10:34am

And use eFiling if you want to send attachments.  Go HERE and sign up to eFile, it’s easy, and then you’re not limited by US Mail.

Categories: Citizens

Chickadees, ready for their new home!

Sat, 08/06/2016 - 3:01pm

Bird Clan

Chickadees, in Bird Clan, a print of oil by Daniel Milton HorseChief, are now framed and ready for its new home in my office, next to my inspirational Jerry Garcia “You can pursue that goal and feed the dog at the same time, it just takes a little extra effort” photo.  I haven’t had a splurge like this in a while, and it feels good!

HorseChief is both a painter and sculptor, living on the Oklahoma end of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line transmission project.

HorseChief creates art based on Cherokee history, culture

Prints are available of his work, and he can be reached via facebook.

Custer’s Knoll, The Battle of the Little Bighorn 1976

Going Snake’s Trail

LonghairClan Mother


Categories: Citizens

Is Enbridge going to pull plug on Sandpiper pipeline?

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 9:06am

Word is out, confirming scuttlebutt, that Enbridge will pull the plug on the Sandpiper pipeline.  It’s not official yet, nothing has happened beyond an announcement, but if Enbridge is saying it, IN WRITING, then that means it’s highly likely, eh?

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and Enbridge Inc. Announce Agreement to Acquire Equity Interest in the Bakken Pipeline System Establishing New Path to the U.S. Gulf Coast

Here’s the important part:

Upon successful closing of the transaction, EEP and Marathon Petroleum plan to terminate their transportation services and joint venture agreements for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project. EEP continues to believe the Bakken region is a highly productive and attractive basin, which has significant crude oil supply growth potential that will require additional pipeline capacity in the future. The scope and timing of the Sandpiper Pipeline Project will be evaluated during the quarter to ensure that it is positioned to meet the growing need for pipeline capacity while offering customers competitive tolls and strong netbacks. Additionally, in conjunction with a termination of the Sandpiper joint venture agreements with Marathon Petroleum, EEP will retain 100 percent ownership in our legacy North Dakota system, which is one of the most competitive outlets available to producers in the State.

(what’s a “netback?”).

Reuters has it right with the “OVERBUILD” characterization:

Enbridge’s Sandpiper looks to be latest victim of pipeline overbuild

For this to be “official,” Enbridge will need to file a request to withdraw their application with the Public Utilities Commission, there will be a comment period, then the Commission will decide whether to approve the request to withdraw.

Suffice it to say, this will/would also mean that the transmission for the Sandpiper tank farm NW of Clearbrook is not necessary because the tank farm will not be built there (or in an alternate site)!  And that’s good news for my clients next to that tank farm.

As happened with Hollydale, because the Sandpiper part is before OAH, Enbridge has to request a Withdrawal, which will be certified to the Commission for its blessing.  Here’s the Hollydale request:

Xcel/GRE Hollydale Withdrawal Petition

And for Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission for Sandpiper’s Clearbrook tank farm, it’s time for Minnkota to withdraw their application!

So I fired off this missive to the PUC:

PUC Correspondence_Enbridge Press Release

Iit’s time to make sure the PUC knows of this Enbridge plan and the impact of this pullout on the need for transmission support!

Categories: Citizens

Wind turbine noise standards? Long overdue!

Tue, 08/02/2016 - 1:51pm

It’s been a problem for so long.  Minnesota needs respectful wind turbine siting standards, and a part of that is that Minnesota needs wind turbine noise rules.

Way back in 2009, the Minnesota Dept. of Health wrote a report entitled “The Public Health Impact of Wind Turbines” and the PUC opened a docket (PUC Docket 09-845).

In 2016, it’s still an issue, because it’s not been addressed in any meaningful way. Check the Bent Tree docket, starting at 58:36:

Watch video of 7/29/2016 meeting HERE!

So I sent this today, a Rulemaking Petition to the MPCA, and then notice to the PUC that it was sent and that Minn. R. Ch. 7854, the wind siting rules, need work:

Overland – MPCA_Petition for Rulemaking

Overland – PUC Coerespondence re: Petition for Rulemaking

Categories: Citizens

Federal Court also tosses out parts of Wisconsin voter ID law

Sun, 07/31/2016 - 7:47pm

From nearby Wisconsin, the Circuit Court ruling regarding Wisconsin election laws:


I’m still reading the NC one, but if you’re curious about the court’s ruling, check it out.  The bottom line:


Categories: Citizens

Friday’s North Carolina Voting Rights Case

Sun, 07/31/2016 - 6:03pm

(PHOTO: Andrew Krech/News & Record via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

(see also post above, where Wisconsin’s election law was also tossed)

For those concerned with voting rights, here’s Friday’s decision of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals finding that North Carolina’s election law intentionally discriminated against African-American voters, and that it violated the Voting Rights Act and multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

North Carolina – Voting Rights – Court Files 16-1486; 6-1469; 16-1474- 16-1529

Well worth a read to understand the lengths North Carolina legislators went to disenfranchise voters, African-American voters.  A few tidbits:

But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. (p. 10)

… In addition to this general statutory prohibition on racial discrimination, Congress identified particular jurisdictions “covered” by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby Cty., 133 S. Ct. at 2619. Covered jurisdictions were those that, as of 1972, had maintained suspect prerequisites to voting, like literacy tests, and had less than 50% voter registration or turnout. Id. at 2619-20. Forty North Carolina jurisdictions were covered under the Act. 28 C.F.R. pt. 51 app. (2016). (p. 12)

After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess. Id.; J.A. 3653, 2115, 2292. (p. 15).

While the Supreme Court has expressed hope that “racially polarized voting is waning,” it has at the same time recognized that “racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history.” Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 25 (2009). In fact, recent scholarship suggests that, in the years following President Obama’s election in 2008, areas of the country formerly subject to § 5 preclearance have seen an increase in racially polarized voting. See Stephen Ansolabehere, Nathaniel Persily & Charles Stewart III, Regional Differences in Racial Polarization in the 2012 Presidential Election: Implications for the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 126 Harv. L. Rev. F. 205, 206 (2013). Further, “[t]his gap is not the result of mere partisanship, for even when controlling for partisan identification, race is a statistically significant predictor of vote choice, especially in the covered jurisdictions.” Id. (p. 28).

While it is of course true that “history did not end in 1965,” id., it is equally true that SL 2013-381 imposes the first meaningful restrictions on voting access since that date — and a comprehensive set of restrictions at that. Due to this fact, and because the legislation came into being literally within days of North Carolina’s release from the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act, that long-ago history bears more heavily here than it might otherwise. Failure to so recognize would risk allowing that troubled history to “pick[] up where it left off in 1965” to the detriment of African American voters in North Carolina. LWV, 769 F.3d at 242. (p. 32).


Categories: Citizens

Last night, best rate case crowd ever!

Thu, 07/28/2016 - 11:04am

Last night’s Xcel Energy Rate Case public hearing was the largest crowd of the ones I attended.  There were also more public comments than at any hearing I’d attended.

To look at the docket, which includes testimony, go HERE and search for PUC Docket 15-826.  The testimony, particularly that of the OAG-RUD, Commerce DER, and AARP are worth a look.

Now, it’s time to get to writing comments.  Probably the Rebuttal Testimony won’t be filed in time to read and comment on, grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

AARP work on notice and turnout seems to have helped, and a couple of folks commented that they’d read my Letter to the Editor in the Republican bEagle:

Letter: Speak up at Xcel rate case hearing


Categories: Citizens

Xcel Rate Case Hearing TONIGHT in Red Wing

Wed, 07/27/2016 - 5:03pm





This is a transmission driven rate case, Xcel Energy claiming that the cost of the massive transmission build-out is reason to raise the rates.  they also claim that sand mining has increased demand.  But folks, the demand is down, down, down, and the transmission buildout is THROUGH Minnesota, bring Dakotas coal energy to points east, selling as much of their generation surplus on the market as they possibly can.

A couple of things you might find interesting, I did, are some of the Direct Testimony filings.

2A2_Multi-Year Rate Plan – Burdick_201511-115332-02


And the AG’s Office – RUD:

OAG_RUD_Initial Comments_201511-115670-01




Here’s the AARP testimony, choosing narrow issues to challenge, particularly Xcel’s desire to raise the basic charge to have access to service, before one kWhr goes through your meter:

AARP Brockway Direct Testimony 20166-122233-01

And look what the Dept. of Commerce has discovered and revealed in testimony — XCEL HASN’T PAID TAXES SINCE 2008!

This income tax snippet is from the Direct Testimony of Nancy Campbell, Department of Commerce DER:

Campbell_DER_Direct Testimony_20166-122243-04

Here’s the Exhibit she refers to, scroll down to “NAC-20” at the very end, where you’ll find Xcel’s answer to IR 1171:


Really!  Xcel Energy has paid less than $1 million in federal income taxes in the 7 years from 2009 through 2015!  Meanwhile, CEO Ben Fowkes was paid $9.2 million in 2015, v. $12.4 million in 2014!  (does that include stock options, deferred compensation, etc?)

Center of the American Experiment has been weighing in, but not even bothering to let people know when and where the hearings are or how to file a comment!!

Center of the American Experiment is off track




Categories: Citizens

Bookmark and Share