Missoulian: Last
call' for Libby as EPA discusses its preferred final asbestos remedy
EPA Announces Proposed Plan for Cleanup
Public Comment Period May 8 to July 8, 2015
“The public is invited to review and comment on the EPA’s proposed plan for cleanup and long-term management for all remaining portions of the Libby Asbestos Superfund site, with the exception of the former Libby vermiculite mine and forested areas.”
Proposed plan and related documents »
EPA Announces Proposed Plan for Cleanup
Public Comment Period May 8 to July 8, 2015
“The public is invited to review and comment on the EPA’s proposed plan for cleanup and long-term management for all remaining portions of the Libby Asbestos Superfund site, with the exception of the former Libby vermiculite mine and forested areas.”
Proposed plan and related documents »
Missoulian: Great
Falls businessman banned permanently from securities transactions
Converse, Richard and Victorious Financial Bank
Converse, Richard and Victorious Financial Bank
Missoulian: Tobacco
firms get partial win over claims on smoking effects
USA v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
“In this appeal, the fifth in this long-running RICO case against the nation’s cigarette manufacturers, defendants challenge a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American public” about the dangers of cigarettes; and a declaration that they “intentionally designed cigarettes” to maximize addiction. Reading the extensive briefs the parties and their amici have submitted, one might think this case presents thorny, unresolved questions under both RICO and the First Amendment. As we explain below, however, the heavy lifting has already been done. Given our earlier decisions in this case, the manufacturers’ objection to disclosing that they intentionally designed cigarettes to ensure addiction is both waived and foreclosed by the law of the case. Those decisions make equally clear that the district court, in ordering defendants to announce that they deliberately deceived the public, exceeded its authority under RICO to craft remedies that “prevent and restrain” future violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a).”
USA v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
“In this appeal, the fifth in this long-running RICO case against the nation’s cigarette manufacturers, defendants challenge a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American public” about the dangers of cigarettes; and a declaration that they “intentionally designed cigarettes” to maximize addiction. Reading the extensive briefs the parties and their amici have submitted, one might think this case presents thorny, unresolved questions under both RICO and the First Amendment. As we explain below, however, the heavy lifting has already been done. Given our earlier decisions in this case, the manufacturers’ objection to disclosing that they intentionally designed cigarettes to ensure addiction is both waived and foreclosed by the law of the case. Those decisions make equally clear that the district court, in ordering defendants to announce that they deliberately deceived the public, exceeded its authority under RICO to craft remedies that “prevent and restrain” future violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a).”
