Bob Simpson  President of Freshwater Tissue Co. appeared on Channel 3 news last night to say he had several deals in the works for the mill. He said that he had two companies that were interested in partnering in the running of the mill and two companies that wanted to buy the boiler.  We'll see.

Also of note are the threats and namecalling that are going on both on this blog and on the Humboldt Herald.  Is this the way business is done?  The following are just some of the examples:

"Killed the jobs Binder.. I won't forget."  ME

"Carol, Carol, Carol...Your ignorance and lack of proper information astound me." Nat Zink Local 49 President.

"If ignorance could be monetized you are worth billions." Bob Simpson

"You spew pulp fiction because that word isn't in your vocabulary...I will not allow your lies to continue because you are harming too many lives in this community." Bob Simpson

and my favorite from the Humboldt Herald "...you are a pathetic pathological liar."

 Are we supposed to go away now? Our information all comes from government documents or from interviews with public officials.

Jim
9/14/2010 03:55:04 am

Carol,
Whats amazing, is you think its ok to spew your misinformation.But not have it rebuffed by the truth.

Reply
Major T. J. "King" Kong
9/14/2010 04:04:19 am

Well, Carol, we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we got one little budge on them "Couchers". At this height why they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!

Reply
cricket
9/14/2010 04:09:14 am

Now I'm totally confused. What's the misinformation? What have I missed?

Reply
Pulp Fiction
9/14/2010 04:13:22 am

WestEureka; Starin' at something, friend?

Pulper: I ain't your friend, palooka.

WestEureka: What did you say?

Pulper: I think you heard me just fine, punchy

Reply
Jules
9/14/2010 04:15:32 am

Cricket
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Reply
Patrick
9/14/2010 04:17:19 am

Cricket, I'm as confused as you are. I've never posted any information on this blog for which I don't have documentation. Anyway, "misinformation" is a pretty vague term. How does a person defend one's self from such a charge? Does this remind you of Kafka and The Trial?

Reply
Oliver
9/14/2010 04:25:58 am

Cricket, to be charitable, I assume Jules is trying to be humorous. "Poison and destroy my brothers?" Is he talking about air pollution? Anyway, as for myself, I'm an atheist.

Reply
Jim
9/14/2010 04:27:03 am

"It's time to let go of it," said Carol Binder, a West Eureka resident who can see the smokestacks of the mill from her home and runs a blog, People Against the Samoa Pulp Mill."

Has it been said repeatedly she sees the stacks from her window?

Reply
Mad mad mad mad mad world
9/14/2010 04:32:54 am

Benjy Benjamin: Look! We've figured it seventeen different ways, and every time we figured it, it was no good, because no matter how we figured it, somebody don't like the way we figured it! So now, there's only one way to figure it. And that is, every man, including the old bag, for himself!
Ding Bell: So good luck, and may the best man win!
Benjy Benjamin: [to Mrs. Marcus] Right! Except you,lady. May you just drop dead!

Reply
Cricket
9/14/2010 04:37:02 am

Jim, is that the misinformation? How can anyone tell someone else what they can see? I can see the tall stack from my front porch and I have often plumes from the mill from the sidewalk by Ink People building, etc. What is the point? That's like Grant St. telling Frank what Frank can see. I think what mill supporters are trying to say is that when the mill is operating folks in Eureka, especially those in west Eureka, can't see its plumes. But this is obviously untrue. THIS IS MISINFORMATION.

Reply
Patrick
9/14/2010 04:42:53 am

My observations of the mill, its visible and odoriforous emissions, primarily from various locations in west Eureka, were accepted by the judge as deposition in a civil suit against the Samoa mill. What are we arguing about?

Reply
Jim
9/14/2010 04:53:25 am

One vent on the boiler.Heat from the cooling stack. And the other 99% is water evaporation from the drying of the sheet.
So 99% of "what you see" is water vapor.
And anything said can be excepted in a deposition.

Reply
Stand up guy
9/14/2010 04:58:41 am

The Wolf: You're... Jimmie, right? This is your house?
Jimmie: Sure is.
The Wolf: I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems.
Jimmie: Good, we got one.
The Wolf: So I heard. May I come in?
Jimmie: Uh, yeah, please do.

Reply
Patrick
9/14/2010 05:27:52 am

Jim, the only thing we have been discussing is visibility. You're just playing games by changing the subject. Your agruments seem to be something like this: "You can't see it." "Well I guess you can but its just water vapor". The HAP content from the mill is covered in regulatory documents. A deposition is entered as sworn testimony under penalty of perjury, after extensive questioning by the opposing attorney. Also entered as evidence were drops in pressure on the pollution control device indicating above regulatory limits of pollution. Confronted with this and other evidence, Evergreen finally agreed to upgrade its pollution control; something it had been refusing to do since taking ownership of the mill.

Reply
Jim
9/14/2010 05:33:34 am

So in your words,,pollution control is now in place right.

Reply
westsider
9/14/2010 05:38:35 am

Shortly after the 9/10/10 Times-Standard story on the mill by John Driscoll, Bob Simpson posted on Richard Marks' blog. Here is some of what he said, "We are running out of options but there is sitll a glimmer of light in the window. We have been working with an investment fund to raise equity. The equity will strengthen our balance sheet and allow us to borrow the remaining funds needed to reopen the mill. If we fail to raise equity then we will be forced to liquidate the mill." Then, "Lastly, I offered to partner with the Carpenter Union, APWWA and Plumbers & Steamfitters. I have also asked the labor unions to provide a loan that can be paid off within 6-8 months. I have not received a response." I believe one of the issues raised in the appeal to the Water Quality Board's July 15 decision was that this kind of shaky financing does not inspire trust in the ability of Freshwater to adequately maintain the mill's pollution control system.

Reply
Jim
9/14/2010 05:49:23 am

Did you catch that even the residents of Samoa want to keep the mill open ?

Reply
The DR is in
9/14/2010 05:59:55 am

For more than a year, ominous rumors had been privately circulating among high-level Western leaders that the Samoa pulp mill had been at work on what was darkly hinted to be the ultimate weapon: a doomsday device. Intelligence sources traced the site of the top secret Mill project to the perpetually fog-shrouded wasteland below the Trinity peaks of Humbolt Ca. What they were building or why it should be located in such a remote and desolate place no one could say.

Reply
Patrick
9/14/2010 06:04:07 am

Evergreen made some improvements in the Samoa mill's pollution control system, basically because they were forced to. The APCO at the time, Lawrence Odle made them install a new ESP and he was fired. A citizen's suit resulted in Evergreen's agreement to install a Venturi Scrubber and not long after that they skipped out. This is in line with the whole history of the Samoa mill going back to the Surfrider suit: improvements have been made in pollution control only when these have been forced on the mill's operators. Even after Evergreen's improvements, there were days when I could still detect TRS emissions. Besides, "breakdowns" are allowed for in the mill's Title V Permit and pollution control systems, however sophisticated, never function perfectly. I simply choose not to have a pulp mill in my neighborhood. Because of the basic kraft process and because of varing economic factors I do not believe over the long term a mill such as the Samoa mill can be operated without being a hazard to people living in this vicinty.

Reply
EurekanEar
9/14/2010 07:47:55 am

It seems the plan for the boiler,If the mill itself does not re-start. Is to use it as a waste chemical recovery distilation plant. So if you think the pulp mill was bad.Just wait for this project to go through.

Reply
Dedicated Westender
9/14/2010 08:05:56 am

I am truly shocked to read the comments from the people who support the Pulp Mill. They are manipulatory death threats that have no place in a public service forum that this website was designed to provide. The website has been consistent in providing factual information and summaries of agency interviews in the absense of an almost complete media blackout on the subject of the mill's proposed reopening.

Like lawyers who argue in court and then have lunch together, let's remember that we all are citizens of Humboldt even if we see things in different lights.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/14/2010 11:46:51 am

Carol,

You file an appeal against Freshwater's NPDES permit before Freshwater operates one day and you think we won't respond. You are a selfish person.

You may find this hard to believe, I feel sorry for people with low self-esteem who try to overcome their issues by striking out against mainstream society. May God be with you.

Reply
Pulpers
9/14/2010 01:17:48 pm

We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the "Couchers"

Reply
Oliver
9/14/2010 03:01:29 pm

Dedicated Westender makes a fine point. Bob, as for "people with low self- esteem" is this the way you feel about all progressives, social activists, the environmental movement, the women's movement--or any other representative of the people who dares to stand up to the moneyed elite? Or do you just like to bully women?

Reply
westsider
9/14/2010 03:18:11 pm

'coucher'? Is that your term for someone who has worked all his life and finally retired? I don't suppose you've ever heard of AARP. There are millions of us. I was 13 when I started helping my grandfather log walnut logs. Is sitting at your computer insulting people what you call 'war'?

Reply
Steve
9/14/2010 04:03:11 pm

Bob,
If you are in the right according to the law, then the appeal won't make a difference in the end. If you prove you are able to get it up to code you have no problem.
The appeal only matters if you are unable to adhere to environmental laws, properly clean up the site, etc.
So if the site is too dirty to pay for the clean up, blame those who dirtied it, namely Freshwater Pulp.

Don't blame those against the mill.


Reply
Bob Simpson
9/14/2010 09:28:46 pm

No. Just Carol. In fact, I have total respect for Baykeppers, Epic, Cat's, Sierra-Club and Greenpeace. These groups listen to reason and they are not selfish. Here is a sample of Carol's selfish and unreasonable attitude:

1) The mill is a polluter and it can't be changed.

2) It is better to have a mill in China with no environmental oversight than to have a mill in Samoa with ownership that cares about the environment.

3) There must be a plot to deceive West Eureka because EXIM Bank told her they had not received a loan application from Freshwater.

4) When invited to a meeting at the Samoa mill where all environmental groups were present, Carol decline the offer to attend. Her answer....I know everything I need to know about the Samoa Mill.

I think #4 defines who Carol is...closed minded.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/14/2010 09:43:22 pm

Steve:

I disagree with you. Carol's appeal against the Samoa mill will be dismissed because it lacks legal merit. But her meritless claim has created a financial hardship for Freshwater and its employess.

Bnks and investors have choices as to where to invest or loan their money. Neither will allow their money to be invested in the mill until the issue is cleared.

Investors don't earn by leaving their money uninvested. In fact, if their money isn't invested they will likely see the fund reduced in size.

Lenders have been forced through new FDIC rules to be even more cautious than they were prior to the collapse of the banking system. Banks look at appeals against permits as a risk. Needless to say, the risk of potentially losing an appeal is not acceptable to any bank we have spoke to.

The question is, when Carol's appeal is dismissed shouldn't she have personal liability for the financial imposition her meritless appeal cost Freshwater and its employees?

Reply
Union Brother
9/15/2010 04:45:07 am

I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

WHAT REMEDY RULE 11 PROVIDES

Rule 11 prescribes sanctions for certain basic misdeeds: (1) the filing of a frivolous suit or document; (2) the filing of a document or lawsuit for an improper purpose; (3) actions that needlessly increase the cost or length of litigation.

Relevant parts of the rule are these:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation... If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee (emphasis added).

Sanctions may apply against an attorney, the client, or both; therefore, we have adopted the collective convention, attorney/client.

Reply
Brother
9/15/2010 04:50:52 am

In California, the imposition of sanctions is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128.5. The court, in Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 (Cal.App.4Dist. 1991), held that Section 128.5 allows a court to order sanctions when expenses are incurred by the opposing party as a result of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Thus, a bad faith subjective standard is still in place in California.

Reply
9/15/2010 05:08:47 am

The fact that you could bring up sanctions due to a frivolous lawsuit tells me that you have not been paying attention. You have not heard our genuine concern for our health and for the environment!!!!

Reply
Union Brother
9/15/2010 05:22:16 am

The question is, when Carol's appeal is dismissed shouldn't she have personal liability for the financial imposition her meritless appeal cost Freshwater and its employees?

Reply
Jerry B
9/15/2010 05:34:26 am

As a former worker of the pulp mill who has lost his job, all of this is very frustrating. This pulp mill provided a lot of jobs to people in the community who went out and spent their money at businesses in the coummunity who in turn spent more money in the community. I don't believe industry should be able to cause an unsafe environment just to make a buck. I also don't believe we should stop industry. The community needs this pulp mill. If everyone in the community honestly thought about the economic trickle down affect, there would be very few people in the community that didn't benefit from the pulp mill. This also includes the government agencies and their employees who regulated this mill. The government did issue a permit to operate this mill. Please let Bob Simpson do his job and get this mill up and running again. The community needs it. The government agencies that issued these permits will make sure the mill stays in compliance or they have the option of pulling the permits. What is their to loose?

Reply
Brother
9/15/2010 06:43:44 am

Jerry
Well said;
"The government did issue a permit to operate this mill. Please let Bob Simpson do his job and get this mill up and running again. The community needs it. The government agencies that issued these permits will make sure the mill stays in compliance or they have the option of pulling the permits."

Carol and group'
The fact remains,your enviro-activision is one thing.Your protest at the board meetings is your right. But the moment you filed the appeal.This became a legal issue to those involved. Both Freshwater and the union reserve the right to now bring suit,aginst you,as the signature of the appeal.

Yes, Withdraw your appeal. Or our rights come into play.



Reply
Oliver
9/15/2010 06:45:53 am

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that whether or not an appeal of a decision of a regulatory agency - when the agancy rules state that anyone can offer such an appeal - is "frivolous" is probably a pretty technical legal issue. That's all I would say about that. I do know that (1) the Water Quality Board voted to withdraw the Samoa mill's water discharge permit after Evergreen left and (2) that the Board's own Enforcement section issued a letter advising against approving a new permit. People living in Eureka who speak out against the local pulp mill face a nearly impregnable local mythology of denial. This is really tragic. Although EPIC and CATS did enter into a civil suit against Evergreen under the Clean Air Act, I suspect that this local mythology is a primary reason local mainstream environmental organizations are reluctant to take a stand against the mill's pollution. It is unfortunate that decades ago this community made the decision to establish a pulp making industry next to a working class neighborhood. Today this neighborhood is mixed ethnically and is home to residents from infants to the retired and elderly. Regulatory agency records document a long history of violations of air and water emission legal limits. This is a fact and acting like this fact doesn't exist is just one aspect of the mythology of denial. Unfortunately, this denial seems recently to have taken the guise of insult, threats, and bullying on this blog. I think this blog was established primarily as a means of communication between people opposing the Samoa pulp mill. The owner of the blog has been gracious enough to keep it open to the general public and to supporters of the mill. These insults and threats are sad. Eureka is a beautiful community in many ways. Unfortunately, however, it also has an ugly underside people often hesitate to talk about. By this I mean its place in the history of clear cutting the redwood forests, the forced expulsion of Chinese settlers, the massacre at the Weyot village, and more recently a string of fatal police shootings. Another example of this mythology of denial came up recently on this blog when I tried to explain the state of mind of people living in west Eureka by introducing a concept from social psychology, "The Mitagatory Gap". This was blown off as "cut and paste psychology", although actually it is a precise description of the cognitive/emotional state of people who know they have been exposed to environmental contamination and also know the threat has not been eliminated. The Samoa mill has a long documented history of water and air pollution. People who know this and who know they are living within the range of the mill's air emissions naturally experience this state of anxiety -and as long as the mill is in operation or a chance it may come into operation their anxiety will not be "mitigated". The same psychologist who developed the concept of the mitagatory gap has noted that a natural reaction of people caught in this situation is to organize together against the threat of environmental contamination. To bully, threaten and insult people protesting against threats to their health from a documented source of pollution and hazardous air emissions is the saddest thing I can imagine. I would guess that most of the people being threatened by pulp mill proponents on this blog are elderly people with various health problems. These people have the courage to speak out for neighborhood families with children who have asthma and other conditions rendering them vulnerable. To me this kind of bullying seems so ugly but I have seen the same kind of thing going all the way back to the days of the civil rights movement in the 60s.

Reply
Brother
9/15/2010 07:03:22 am

So lets see what our lawyer and the lawyer YOU WILL HAVE TO HIRE come up with then.

Reply
Brothers
9/15/2010 07:19:56 am

Oliver
This is the law;
Tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Thus, a bad faith subjective standard is still in place in California. Looking over the appeal filed it should be easy to show "no new evidence presented". There for the rule applys to your group here.

The question will be, when Carol's appeal is dismissed should she have personal liability for the financial imposition her meritless appeal cost Freshwater and its employees?

Drop the appeal , or we will see ya in court.

Reply
roger
9/15/2010 07:43:46 am

Has anyone heard the rumor that APP, through its Dutch subsidiary, is looking at the mill, to invest and restart?

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/15/2010 08:59:19 am

Roger,

You have my assurance, neither Asia Pulp & Paper nor its subsidiary that purchased the Halsey, Oregon mill are looking at the mill. I would not have them as a partner.

Reply
9/15/2010 11:11:49 am

You underestimate our resolve if you think you can threaten us into dropping the appeal. Not happening!

Reply
Brother
9/15/2010 12:04:25 pm

West
Thats fine , We were kinda hoping you'd say that."Stick to you guns". O and get a lawyer on retainer.
Keep in mind . The union has nothing left to do with our treasury. Can you say the same ?
What Freshwater decides to do about legal action for your frivolous appeal, and their projected lost revenue remains to be seen.

Reply
westsider
9/15/2010 12:14:51 pm

As the old saying goes,"You can sue a ham sandwich."

Reply
Brother
9/15/2010 12:22:17 pm

West
I like this saying better.
"Your playin with the big boys now!"

So thats that,,,,

Reply
Anonymous
9/15/2010 12:34:33 pm

Reply
9/15/2010 12:46:12 pm

That is all well and fine, but Freshwater Tissue has a lot more to worry about than our appeal. It was a gamble in the first place. Freshwater didn't have the money. They couldn't borrow the money even without the appeal.

Their permit is not clear. The cease of desist order has 23 deadlines that they need to meet or their permit will be revoked. Coming up: December 16, 2010: Provide provide financial assurances for funding design and construction of the treatment plant.
Also December 16, 2010: Submit preliminary project proposal.

Does Freshwater have all the permits it needs???? You would do better to begin asking Mr. Simpson and the other owners of Freshwater Tissue Co. some straightforward questions. Right now,Mr. Simpson is using this blog and the citizens who filed the appeal as a diversion to keep the heat off himself.

Reply
Anonymous
9/15/2010 12:47:48 pm

There is a anti-slapp law in the State
of California. There are many that know the appeal was not frivolous.
If Simpson wants this appeal to go before the water broad, why hasn't he
gotten a court order to expedite it?
Why hasn't Simpson gotten his air permits? The threats that have been
posted on this blog are ominous enough to notify law enforcement. If I were
the author of this blog I would do so.

Reply
Frank
9/15/2010 01:49:37 pm

It's my understanding that at the July 15 hearing Mr. Simpson asked that all the dates for the Discharge Permit and the Cease and Desist Order be delayed for 90 days in order for him to try to raise money so he could do the things the Water Board said he had to do. That period goes until October 13th. Is this actually one of the reasons investors are holding back? Is this right or not: I need a permit so I can raise money, but I don't want the permit to go into effect because I don't have any money?

Reply
Steve
9/15/2010 02:42:49 pm

Personally, bulldoze the west side, and make it in to a park. Street walkers and drug dealers is all you'll find there,, Walk down C st and all you can smell is pot gardens, house after house. Great area the west side !

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/16/2010 12:24:42 am

Carol,

Your comment again indicates your ignorance of the process. Our environmental engineer prepared the timelines of the CDO. The Water Board simply reviews the information we provide them and responds if they have questions.

I personally handed Catherine Kuhlman of the State Water Board a letter of commitment received from our equity investor. The commitment was pulled after you filed your appeal. So spare me the pulp fiction because you are clueless about our finances.

As for straight answers...you are correct. I am the source of straight answers and you are the source of pulp fiction. Do you realize how foolish your comments were when you addressed the State Water Board? What do you do at the College of the Redwoods? God help us if you are a professor!



Reply
Realworld
9/16/2010 01:44:53 am

Anon
Generally, a "SLAPP" is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution,( this part is for you ) nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.
In California, the imposition of sanctions is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128.5. The court, in Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 (Cal.App.4Dist. 1991), held that Section 128.5 allows a court to order sanctions when expenses are incurred by the opposing party as a result of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Thus, a bad faith subjective standard is still in place in California.

This means you Carol and group. Are open to a very expensive suit at this point.
You may want to consider,the old saying."Win the battle to lose the war."

Reply
Stay the course
9/16/2010 01:51:23 am

Most SLAPPs are ultimately legally unsuccessful. While most SLAPPs lose in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources

Reply
Win to lose
9/16/2010 01:56:35 am

The filing of a SLAPP also impedes resolution of the public matter at issue, by removing the parties from the public decision-making forum, where the both cause and resolution of the dispute can be determined, and placing them before a court, where only the alleged "effects" of the public controversy may be determined. For example, imagine a company asks for a zoning variance to place an incinerator in a residential area. When local residents object to the city council, the company sues them for "interference with contract." The judge hearing the suit cannot decide the real issues -- the location of the incinerator -- but will have to spend considerable judicial resources to decide the side issues of the alleged "damages" or other consequences of the public debate on the real issues

Reply
roger
9/16/2010 03:02:13 am

Bob Simpson,

Partner? Who said anything about a partnership? Interesting choice of words.

One presumes that if APP wants to invest in restarting a mill and hire people to run it and establish relationships with the various other stakeholders, e.g., fiber, water, energy they would demand 100% ownership.

Reply



Leave a Reply.