UPDATE 3/6/06: Appellate judge overturns ruling! Story now un-censored! Glad we were right on this one from the get-go! Details…
===
Ed Note: Since running this story originally, the Google cache has also now been purged of the censored documents. Fortunately, we screen-captured and ran the text in full for each story below, as we believe them to be in the public interest. We have retained all of the original links to the locations of the story, despite their having been scrubbed.
A judge in Kansas City, Kansas, on Friday issued a temporary restraining order requiring that two area newspapers remove articles from their website which reported on alleged malfeasance by the Board of Public Utilities (BPU).
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Kelly Moorhouse found in a 3-page order [PDF] that the stories were based on privileged attorney-client information, which was leaked to the newspapers, and that publication of any portion of it would cause “irreparable harm” to the BPU.
The Kansas City Star and The Pitch, a local news weekly, both reported about the forced removal of the material and their intention to appeal the rare judicial decision to censor their reporting. A story was also run about the matter by AP.
At the end of this article The BRAD BLOG will run the Kansas City Star’s short article in full since it has been ordered removed — foolishly in our opinion, particularly in the Internet age when such stories are instantly archived, as was this one, by Google’s cache engine — and appears clearly to be in the best interest of the public and their right to know about how their public utilities are being run…
The Star’s dangerous version of the story alleges that, according to a confidential “liability analysis” prepared by an attorney for the BPU and then leaked to the papers, “At least 15 projects and upgrades at power plants operated by the Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan., may have violated federal clean air laws.”
According to The Star, the document (which we haven’t seen, so we cannot corroborate their reporting) “layed out the odds for the BPU of the risks of penalties by the Environmental Protection Agency. It examined 73 projects that may not have followed regulations.”
“Of those,” reported the now-censored paper, “15 were ‘probably not defensible’ and another 15 were ‘questionable.'”
The lede in the Pitch’s version of the censored story (also now posted in full below) reports that the BPU “may be liable for thousands of dollars in fines for failing to comply with anti-pollution regulations, according to a confidential document.”
An EPA spokesperson contacted by the Pitch said that “The BPU has not contacted the agency to disclose its failure to seek repair permits and follow regulations when making upgrades” to their coal-powered plants.
“Any one of those projects ‘puts BPU at risk’ for an audit by the EPA,” the confidential document reportedly warned.
The BRAD BLOG still strongly believes in the First Amendment, despite the continuing assault upon it over the last several years. We’ve seen a similar case to the BPU matter, in that of Stephen Heller, the courageous whistleblower who we covered here extensively, after he leaked attorney-client privileged documents which revealed wrongdoing by the voting machine company Diebold, Inc. Heller’s act was performed for the greater good and in the public interest. Diebold similarly tried to stop the Oakland Tribune from running those documents, but failed in their attempts to stop publication. Hopefully BPU will eventually fail as well.
According to The Star’s coverage of the censorship, the newspaper’s editor and vice president Mark Zieman said, “To have a published story pulled from our Web site is unprecedented and unbelievable.” We concur.
Further, the paper reports:
In Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government attempts to censor the media are presumed unconstitutional.
Over the years, the court has repeatedly ruled that courts can try to prevent the dissemination of information only if it presents a “clear and present danger” or a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
The Pitch reported in their coverage:
“The ruling doesn’t just threaten the freedom of the press, it hurts the people of Kansas City,” added Pitch editor C.J. Janovy. “They deserve some answers. Moorhouse’s ruling clearly goes against the public interest.”
With all of that in mind, the Google cache version of the original Star story is here.
But should that be taken down as well for some reason, we’ve posted the story in full below, feel free to copy it, paste it, and share it with your friends — those still in favor of the Constitution and the freedom of the press, in any case…
UPDATE: The Pitch’s version of the story is also found via Google cache. It’s still available here. That story is now also posted in full, in solidarity, below. We’d welcome all pro-Constitution blogs to carry either or both versions of the story as seen below…
BPU document details possible clean-air violations
At least 15 projects and upgrades at power plants operated by the Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan., may have violated federal clean air laws, according to a confidential BPU document.
The document, obtained from an anonymous source by The Kansas City Star, was prepared in 2004 by an attorney to lay out the odds for the BPU of the risks of penalties by the Environmental Protection Agency. It examined 73 projects that may not have followed regulations.
Of those, 15 were “probably not defensible” and another 15 were “questionable,” it said.
The document, which calls itself a “liability analysis,” says that the utility could be subject to thousands of dollars in fines. It also says the BPU has the choice of approaching the EPA to reach a settlement or waiting for the EPA to initiate action.
It is unclear which course the BPU took.
EPA and Kansas Department of Health and Environment officials said they did not know anything about possible violations. BPU officials could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.
| Karen Dillon, kdillon@kcstar.com
And now, The Pitch’s version of the story…
Breaking News: BPU Could Face Thousands in Fines
A confidential report reveals the utility didn’t follow federal pollution regulations when upgrading its plants.
Justin Kendall
Published: March 1, 2007
The Board of Public Utilities in Kansas City, Kansas, may be liable for thousands of dollars in fines for failing to comply with anti-pollution regulations, according to a confidential document obtained by the Pitch.
The document was prepared November 16, 2004, by lawyer Stanley A. Reigel. It weighs the pros and cons of admitting to the Environmental Protection Agency that upgrades at BPU power plants did not comply with the federal Clean Air Act.
The report was hand-delivered to Marc Conklin, BPU general counsel and human resources director. The report is stamped “CONFIDENTIAL” and warns against duplication without Conklin’s approval. Conklin did not return a call from the Pitch.
BPU spokeswoman Susan Allen also declined to comment and instead sent an e-mail that read: “BPU cannot comment on a BPU confidential report. The Pitch should be aware that it possesses a confidential, legally protected document. The document should be returned to BPU.”
Mary Gonzales, president of the board of directors that oversees the utility, said Thursday that she was unaware of the report. Reigel did not immediately return a phone call on Friday to his office at the law firm of Stinson Morrison Hecker in Kansas City, Missouri.
When Reigel’s report was written, the EPA was auditing utility companies to see whether upgrades and repairs made after 1980 at coal-powered power plants followed federal guidelines. The letter indicates that the BPU was preparing to respond if audited by the EPA. However, it’s unclear what action, if any, the BPU took after Reigel delivered his letter.
Kim Olson, an EPA spokeswoman in Kansas City, tells the Pitch that the BPU has not contacted the agency to disclose its failure to seek repair permits and follow regulations when making upgrades.
According to Reigel’s letter, his report was spurred by a November 14, 2003, analysis of BPU’s coal-fired power plants by Burns & McDonnell Engineers. The engineering firm estimated that upgrades to the plants to make them comply with federal regulations would cost the utility nearly $160 million.
Reigel’s 15-page document identifies 73 repairs or upgrades that may not have followed EPA rules. The work was done at the utility’s three power plants: Nearman Creek Power Station, Quindaro Power Station and the now-closed Kaw Power Station. The work was completed between January 1980 and November 2004. Reigel determined that 15 of those repairs and upgrades were “questionable” and another 15 projects would be “probably not defensible” if the EPA conducted an audit.
Any one of those projects “puts BPU at risk” for an audit by the EPA, Reigel warned. Fines for utility companies in similar cases amounted to $1,000 for each megawatt of energy produced by the plant. Together, the Nearman and Quindaro plants produce 631 megawatts.
The audits Reigel refers to in his letter fall under an EPA initiative called New Source Review. The program was established by Congress in 1977 as part of the Clean Air act. It requires permits before construction on new power plants. It also calls for modifications at plants to be “as clean as possible,” according to the EPA’s Web site.
Reigel’s report indicates that the BPU did not get the permits “for any of the projects.”
“Thus, failure to conduct pre-project NSR and failure to monitor post-project emission constitutes a violation itself, unless the project is exempt, even if the project does not increase actual emissions above the allowable increment,” the report says.
Hey, put me on the First Amendment defender list too!
(BTW … nice colors)
BTW, there is probably a fascist struggle to privitize the first amendment and give it to Haliburton.
They are viciously attacking even military lawyers who say anything against the fascists:
(Australian at Gitmo, emphasis added). An example would be to call them criminal fascist pigs I suppose. But somehow I think Hick’s lawyer has said far less. He probably spoke the truth in the spirit of the first amendment and the fascist Article 88 was invoked.
The Australians are not happy with their fascist leaning leader either. Neither are the brits with theirs. Good people everywhere are outraged at Bush/Cheney fascism. Good for them.
Even some republican neoCon fascist congress members have helped fire US Attorneys who were prosecuting their fascist behavior.
These fascist pigs stink to high heaven and should be sent to visit Cunningham and Ney.
Speaking from experience, I hope the source of the Board of Public Utilities document(s) doesn’t have to go through what I went through.
Obama investments…link…
Democrats are cellophane.
Being a “public” utility, it baffles me as to why they believe their activities should be “private”.
Nice going Brad Blog.
Keep it up.
It’s all about censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America’s favorite past-time. The US gov’t (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like “America Deceived” America Deceived (book) from Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever, especially when it concerns our gov’t.
Wasn’t it the Democrats and the far-left liberals screaming for electronic touch screen voting machines after the 2000 election?
YES, IT WAS !!
lol….
This is hysterical, you liberals created your own hysteria.
lmao….
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER
Ferrari 599 wrote off-topic:
Wasn’t it the Democrats and the far-left liberals screaming for electronic touch screen voting machines after the 2000 election?
No. Actually it was Rep. Bob Ney who was the main author of HAVA. You recall him? He’s in jail now. The main Diebold lobbyist was Ney’s former Chief of Staff (not the one who just pled guilty, but a different one).
That said, the Dems went along with the scheme, unfortunately, while their various efforts to correct the boondoggle via legislation since then, was not allowed to even come to mark up in the committee which oversaw the issue…a committe chaired by Bob Ney. Thanks for asking.
And shouldn’t you credit Michael Savage when you pass on his unevidenced propaganda as your own? Just asking.
Apologism for America hating neoconism is a menace to the world. Thanks for your time, Ferrari. Try something positive for America, instead of hating it, if you ever get the chance.
Off the Grid #4
Your link is off the mark and your post is off topic. Before I get back on topic, here is what your link says about Obama’s investments:
Conservative, in this context, means not much risk. So whatever you were attempting to say did not register.
Back to reality …
Has anyone considered that we, as a society, tend to demand that people be in the military to really be considered patriotic americans.
And has anyone considered that the military is a fascist organization at odds in fact with the first amendment of the constitution the claim to fight for?
Article 88 says:
Wow. Being put in prison etc. for calling Bush, Cheney, Rummy, neoCondi, and the other fascist pigs a fascist pig. Just practicing …
Evidently the commander in chief thinks this applies to all americans.
And since those at Walter Reed are under the rule of Article 88, guess why they don’t tell it like it is?
Simple rule of damage control: eliminate the voice of dissent or evidence exposing the rotten truth of criminal action (if in US government most often a corporate entity) and there is no infraction or dissent. The Founding Father would love to declare war on the lying murderous Biggest Loser administration of anti-environmentalist aka the Bushit administration.
OT – easier to read now but light brown backround is boring. Are you all gonna do something with that? How bout red white and blue since you rrrr?
Dredd from #9…
Oh…I thought the topic was the 1st Amendment and Fascism…you know freedom of speech and all that jazz…
I’ll start by saying I have a 19 year old half brother in the Army…I’d bet you $100 he can’t define facsism…public school you know. He’s not at odds with the constitution he’s a product of institutionalized ignorance(public schools) and our apathy.
You won’t change people like him, but we can decide who gives the orders.
Did you read past the first page of my link?
and…
$$$—>Satellite telecommunications & biological warfare and bioterrorism agents…
Ahh well, that was all 2 years ago I’m sure it’s different now.
Hey, put me on the First Amendment defender list too!
Off the Grid #11
Ok, I will put you on the First Amendment defender list gladly. We need all the help we can put together.
I still do not see guilt in the purchases you outline for Obama.
Verizon is a fascist telephone company that helps the government spy on Americans. I have no choice but to use them if I want to go online and post here.
But in my monthly bill I write on the outside of the envelope that they are fascist for helping the fascist regime spy on us.
I would switch if I could … but federal law gives state monopolies.
I will stop using them in the near term, because I can’t stand fascists.
Speaking of fascists, the FBI is being exposed again as a fascist organization:
(Raw Story, emphasis added).
Reminds me of a song I once heard, and focuses on those who refused to listen when we told them the FBI was spying on us and probably them too (especially Fitz):
(Bob Dylan).
I’m not exposing guilt. I’m asking people to look behind the curtain…look for the intentions (purposes, designs, aims, or goals) behind the actions(or flow of $$$$$$$), ’cause that’s what it’s about.
For example…when I canceled my cellphone in was $40/month…my power bill was $35…is/was it the phone company’s goal to provide service or make money?
Ain’t nothing wrong with them wanting to make some cash…doesn’t mean I’ll overpay for their services.
Congrats, Brad, for continuing the push for open government. And a shout out to the great Steve Heller — you folks DO know he is one of our modern day heroes, I hope!
And kudos to you also Brad for the lovely parchment background. I don’t miss the green at all. I know you have nothing to do so when you get a spare day or so, can you redo the green/yellow banner at the top? And while you’re at it, will you take that damn lavender stuff off my own banner?
Anyway, it’s great to see this article. And very appropriate for Sunshine Week, which is all about Open Government.
Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
Nice comments from Bev Harris but please don’t change the banner color. It is you. You can however drop the cancer stick.
As for you lavender Bev, thats okay too.
Look at COMMENT #8:
Brad is saying it wasn’t the Dems and Libs who wanted e-voting machines, he says it was Bob Ney.
Are you crazy?
Then you bring up Diebold. Did you know that know in the 2004 election only 20 counties in Ohio used e-voting machines. That is out of 88 counties. And of those 20 that used e-voting machines, only 4 counties used Diebold … and these are NOT the populous counties. These were NOT counties in Columbus, Cleveland or Cincinnati.
So lets break this whole Ohio thing from 2004 down.
88 counties in Ohio
68 counties used punch ballots in 2004
20 counties used e-voting in 2004
(( ONLY 4 counties used Diebold e-voting of 20 ))
Back to Comment #8
Brad,
I would love to see you produce any links showing Republicans filing lawsuits to get rid of punch card voting machines back in 2001.
I can produce link after link after link where the ACLU (liberal organization) has filed lawsuits all over the country demanding punch card voting machines be replaced with e-voting machines.
{ed note: [1] These links say nothing about replacing punchcards with DRE, [2] punchcard issue was originated in California by Republicans, probably Georgia too, and [3] ACLU is NON-partisan. –99}
April 18, 2001
ACLU files lawsuit demanding e-voting machines
http://www.calvoter.org/news/cv...ews041801.html
January 6, 2001
ACLU sues Georgia over voting machines – The lawsuit seeks to throw out the punch-card system used in 17 Georgia counties, in which voters use styluses to poke through rectangles of paper, or chads, to select candidates.
http://quest.lubbockonline.com/...06017635.shtml
Sept 12, 2003
ACLU lawsuit about replacing punch card voting machines
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/a...2/MN302474.DTL
{ed note: [1] These links say nothing about replacing punchcards with DRE, [2] punchcard issue was originated in California by Republicans, probably Georgia too, and [3] ACLU is NON-partisan. –99}
PS – You are out of your mind if think liberals and democrats were not the ones that filed lawsuits all over America back in 2001 after the 2000 Gore/Bush election.
Any moron can just google this and find it out. I guess your following is too stupid to do that and they just believe anything you say.
You’re like Jim Jones serving the kool-aid to your followers.
{ed note: You’re like a disinformation artist, 599. Keep it up and you’re 86’d. –99}
Only time, for the moment, to comment on this one aspects of Ferrari’s silly, unsubstantiated attempt at partisan politics:
Golly, is that what you said? I coulda sworn your initial post, which I responded to, had claimed:
But, typically, you now try to move the goal posts and point to ACLU (not Democrats) suing to get rid of punch-card systems (decidedly not the same as “screaming for touch screen voting machines)
You then go on to obfuscate with:
Ya know what’s weird? How a “liberal organization” would actually go to court in support of Rush Limbaugh. Whacky, that.
Yes, Bob Ney’s former Chief of Staff, David DiStefano, is, and was, Diebold main lobbyist on Capitol Hill (now joined by Friend of Bush Roy Coffee).
That said, Dems foolishly went along (by and large) with the horrible Help America Vote Act, and though they tried to amend it, they haven’t gotten the chance to do so until now. Let’s see if they do so properly. As you might have noticed, I’ve been highly critical of their plans so far in that regard.
BTW, you’re damned dangerously close to having posts removed for personal insults against other commenters. I’m fair game, as a “public-ish” person, but not other non-public commenters here. So watch it.
Stick to trying to shore up your weak case with actual information, instead of the personal attacks on others please. Thanks.
Okay, Brad: While you were answering, I was editorializing. So… if you want to take out my editorials, go right ahead. I’m gonna go make some more Kool-Aid. 😛
Ferrari can try to come up with something more substantial if he/she likes, if it matters…but the important question is whether DRE’s should be used in voting and, if not what should we do. In typical troll fashion, Ferrari starts an argument – a loud diversion – on the periphery that he no doubt hopes will divert attention from the main battle.
In the center, is Brad Blog and BBV with mountains of reasons we should get rid of DRE’s. Let him/her try to assail that. Not likely.
Nice going, Brad — on the issue of this thread — “Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty”
digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!! digg suXX!!