Civil Judicial Penalties and Administrative Penalties
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA), the civil judicial penalties that can be sought for most violations will increase from $32,500 per day per violation to $37,500 per day per violation. Administrative penalties for violations under these statutes will also increase. For example, the $11,000 per day per violation limit (up to a total of $157,500) that can be assessed for certain violations of the CWA and SDWA will increase to $16,000 per day per violation (up to a total of $177,500). The $270,000 limit on total administrative penalties that can be assessed for certain violations of the CAA will increase to $290,000. See EPA Increases Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2009 …
$32,500 x12= $390,000×10= $3,900,000×2= $7,800,000 + $270,000 = $8,070,000 (Pre-2009 assessment)
Based upon the Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts before the 2009 increase by the EPA, Civil Judicial Penalties and Administrative Penalties assessed against Citgo should have been at least $8,070,000 plus interest, not merely $2 million.
Restitution is not included in the above penalties assessed.
Citgo’s 10-year continuing, willful, malicious violations of the Clean Air Act are subject to compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by an impartial jury panel.
Under Crime Victims’ Rights Act, the crime victims are entitled to:
- The right to full and timely restitution as provided by law.
- The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
Rainey should have been constitutionally disqualified for violating the CVRA, and the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the United States Constitution, i.e., the crime victims’ right to access the courts for redress of grievances, the due process, and the criminal/civil jury trial respectively.
Rainey’s deferred restitution ruling on February 5, 2014 violated Rule 32(h): 1) without giving the parties reasonable notice that it was contemplating such a departure, i.e., $0 restitution; 2) without specifying any ground on which the court was contemplating such a departure. It also violated Rule 32(i)(4)(B): 1) without addressing the victims of the crime who were present at sentencing; 2) without permitting the victims to be reasonably heard. * The Committee Note to Rule 32(i)(4)(B) adds that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, any victim who is present should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to speak directly to the judge.”
Instead of allowing the victims who were present a reasonable opportunity to speak directly to him, Rainey simply “stated that because of the complex issues involved with restitution, the Court would issue a written decision on the issue of restitution within 90 days.” Rainey’s conduct not only violated Rule 32(i)(4)(B) but also demonstrated his cowardice, and cold feet. He was feeling guilty of what he had determined to do in 90 days, i.e., $0 restitution. If he had predetermined to give nothing to the victims in the first place, why torture them with false hopes and delayed the announcement of the bad news for seven years after the jury’s conviction on June 27, 2007?
Rainey’s $0 restitution was arbitrary, unreasonable, unconscionable and contrary to a statute, i.e., CVRA, and the Constitution. Thus, his MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER USA V. CITGO of 4/30/2014 was VOID ab initio. “If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void for Rule 60(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). See [PDF] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN ….
TO BE CONTINUED.
Paul Chen
* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them, wait awhile, and it will take you to 70+ images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?