LINKS: - October 19, 2012, Response from DOJ
- A "MUST READ" October 30, 2012, Follow-up from Attorney Hal Wright
The one-page October 19, 2012 letter from William Weinischke (US DOJ representing US EPA) completely omits the legal issues which were presented to Judge Thrash by Hal Wright in his legal brief. Instead, Weinischke directs attention to other issues.
On October 30, 2012, Hal Wright writes to Judge Thrash.
EXCERPT: My clients are outraged that EPA/EPD, the two governmental entities charged with protecting the waters of the State of Georgia as a public trust resource, would so blatantly continue to mislead this Court with untruths, false innuendos, and misrepresentations. While “the Governments” are entitled to their “view that there is nothing in Memorandum that has not already been addressed by these Governments”, this “convenient conclusion” is simply that. The Governments' position is contrary to the facts.
- A "MUST READ" October 30, 2012, Follow-up from Attorney Hal Wright
The one-page October 19, 2012 letter from William Weinischke (US DOJ representing US EPA) completely omits the legal issues which were presented to Judge Thrash by Hal Wright in his legal brief. Instead, Weinischke directs attention to other issues.
On October 30, 2012, Hal Wright writes to Judge Thrash.
EXCERPT: My clients are outraged that EPA/EPD, the two governmental entities charged with protecting the waters of the State of Georgia as a public trust resource, would so blatantly continue to mislead this Court with untruths, false innuendos, and misrepresentations. While “the Governments” are entitled to their “view that there is nothing in Memorandum that has not already been addressed by these Governments”, this “convenient conclusion” is simply that. The Governments' position is contrary to the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment