Dominican town blames U.S. power company AES for birth defects - Front Page - MiamiHerald.com
There is also a video, in English.
There is also a video, in English.
- Thread starter Lambada
- Start date
Rockash Resurfaces
Rock Ash - Where is Erin
This tragedy needs a rain maker like Erin Brockovich to come in and shake AES by the testicles. A few Billion in punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages may bring AES to their senses and offer some financial comfort to those effected families.
Unfortunately this is not a case of ONLY in the DR as there are stockpiles all over the USA of this material as well.
This tragedy needs a rain maker like Erin Brockovich to come in and shake AES by the testicles. A few Billion in punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages may bring AES to their senses and offer some financial comfort to those effected families.
Unfortunately this is not a case of ONLY in the DR as there are stockpiles all over the USA of this material as well.
they are after them
The settlement which was made with the DR government contained nothing for the injured parties
looks like there is enough interest in this for three law firms, all working on contingency.. since AES revenues last year were 16 billion AES Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Very BIG FISH
so imagine the money that they saved by not disposing of their toxic waste properly and injuring and killing these children
i imagine that this will be one of the biggest cases ever
and i imagine that they will not settle.
according to links from the article -
On November 4, 2009, on behalf of eleven plaintiffs in Arroyo Barril, two of whom died after birth, a landmark Complaint was filed in Delaware Superior Court seeking damages from AES and its companies for the human toll the illegal dumping has caused. Law firms in New York City, Philadelphia and Wilmington, Delaware comprise the legal team prosecuting this case.
The Complaint also seeks to compel AES to provide a comprehensive medical monitoring regime for the plaintiffs during their lifetimes. Serious medical problems, including lung and other cancers which take decades to appear, are expected to develop from pervasive exposure to toxic coal ash.
Case Caption
This case is captioned: ANAJAI CALCA?O PALLANO, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of MAXIMILIANO CALCA?O; MARIBEL MERCEDES, Individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of "BABY MERCEDES;" MARIBEL ANDUJAR MEDINA, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of ISAEL ALTAGRACIA ANDUJAR; ROSA MARIA ANDUJAR Individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of "BABY OLMOS;" MARIA VIRGEN DEOGRACIA, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of ESTANLYN GARCIA DEOGRACIA; and AMPARO ANDUJAR, Plaintiffs, v. THE AES CORPORATION, AES ATLANTIS, AES PUERTO RICO, LP, AES PUERTO RICO, INC., and AES PUERTO RICO SERVICES, INC., Defendants
The settlement which was made with the DR government contained nothing for the injured parties
looks like there is enough interest in this for three law firms, all working on contingency.. since AES revenues last year were 16 billion AES Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Very BIG FISH
so imagine the money that they saved by not disposing of their toxic waste properly and injuring and killing these children
i imagine that this will be one of the biggest cases ever
and i imagine that they will not settle.
according to links from the article -
On November 4, 2009, on behalf of eleven plaintiffs in Arroyo Barril, two of whom died after birth, a landmark Complaint was filed in Delaware Superior Court seeking damages from AES and its companies for the human toll the illegal dumping has caused. Law firms in New York City, Philadelphia and Wilmington, Delaware comprise the legal team prosecuting this case.
The Complaint also seeks to compel AES to provide a comprehensive medical monitoring regime for the plaintiffs during their lifetimes. Serious medical problems, including lung and other cancers which take decades to appear, are expected to develop from pervasive exposure to toxic coal ash.
Case Caption
This case is captioned: ANAJAI CALCA?O PALLANO, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of MAXIMILIANO CALCA?O; MARIBEL MERCEDES, Individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of "BABY MERCEDES;" MARIBEL ANDUJAR MEDINA, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of ISAEL ALTAGRACIA ANDUJAR; ROSA MARIA ANDUJAR Individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of "BABY OLMOS;" MARIA VIRGEN DEOGRACIA, Individually, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of ESTANLYN GARCIA DEOGRACIA; and AMPARO ANDUJAR, Plaintiffs, v. THE AES CORPORATION, AES ATLANTIS, AES PUERTO RICO, LP, AES PUERTO RICO, INC., and AES PUERTO RICO SERVICES, INC., Defendants
not such a long shot
Mesothelioma Lawyers, Lead Paint Poisoning, Personal Injury, Fraud Attorneys
Take a closer look at the NY lawyers who are involved in the case
they work on a contingency fee basis
i do not think that they would have taken it if they did not think that they
could not win it
these guys are not philathropists
Mesothelioma Lawyers, Lead Paint Poisoning, Personal Injury, Fraud Attorneys
Take a closer look at the NY lawyers who are involved in the case
they work on a contingency fee basis
i do not think that they would have taken it if they did not think that they
could not win it
these guys are not philathropists
a bit
i only took the law boards not the full 3 year training
(does avid watching of Perry Mason and Law and Order count? naw, didn't think so)
so the defendents are not in the US and do not have a case? as in venue, as in place? is that your point?
my point is that I trust that this law firm .. evidently does believe that they have a case or they would not have taken the case.
I do not know the international laws governing the dumping of toxic waste which I believe would be the ones which are applicable here
I assume that the lawyers at this law firm do understand it and think that they have a case or they would not have taken it
this is not a little store front operation with a shingle outside
these guys are used to getting multimillion dollar settlements so I assume that they take a case only if they figure that it has legal merit
that was my point
is my reasoning flawed here?
i only took the law boards not the full 3 year training
(does avid watching of Perry Mason and Law and Order count? naw, didn't think so)
so the defendents are not in the US and do not have a case? as in venue, as in place? is that your point?
my point is that I trust that this law firm .. evidently does believe that they have a case or they would not have taken the case.
I do not know the international laws governing the dumping of toxic waste which I believe would be the ones which are applicable here
I assume that the lawyers at this law firm do understand it and think that they have a case or they would not have taken it
this is not a little store front operation with a shingle outside
these guys are used to getting multimillion dollar settlements so I assume that they take a case only if they figure that it has legal merit
that was my point
is my reasoning flawed here?
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 1992 might be one of the pertinent laws - supported by 170 countries I believe. Summary here:
http://www.basel.int/convention/bc_glance.pdf
Full text downloadable here - 75 pages.
Text of the Basel Convention
As always the issue is enforcement
From toxic waste to toxic assets, the same people always get dumped on | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
The Basel Convention is a treaty, not a law. Although a few countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have constitutional provisions saying that when those countries ratify an international accord it becomes by reference part of their body of law (in essence, directly applicable, and can be used in court cases), most require some sort of implementing legislation and/or regulation. My understanding is that the DR falls into the latter category.
As I said in another recent post:
Article 4, para. 5, of the Basel Convention requires Parties to "not permit hazardous wastes or other wastes to be exported to a non-Party or to be imported from a non-Party." The DR is a Party, the US (which governs Puerto Rico in trade matters), is not. The rock ash, hazardous or not, fell foul of this article, as well as the 1984 DR law. The fellow in the Environment Ministry who authorized its importation at the time ignored both and did so on the (shaky) argument that (1) the rock ash was not waste, but rather a production input; (2) it was not hazardous.
As I said in another recent post:
Article 4, para. 5, of the Basel Convention requires Parties to "not permit hazardous wastes or other wastes to be exported to a non-Party or to be imported from a non-Party." The DR is a Party, the US (which governs Puerto Rico in trade matters), is not. The rock ash, hazardous or not, fell foul of this article, as well as the 1984 DR law. The fellow in the Environment Ministry who authorized its importation at the time ignored both and did so on the (shaky) argument that (1) the rock ash was not waste, but rather a production input; (2) it was not hazardous.
no international convention
well I doubt that any US court is going to be bound by any international treaty or law, for that matter... sovereign nation and all that.
But there may be some US laws governing off shore actions, I do not know.
Also since it is a civil case, the only issue really is to convince a jury that there is a connection... And, as Cobra pointed out, to get the case taken before a US jury.. that a US court has jurisdiction over what a US company does offshore.... That alone may be groundbreaking for environmental law as I have heard of other countries which have actually been paid to be used as repositories for toxic waste.
well I doubt that any US court is going to be bound by any international treaty or law, for that matter... sovereign nation and all that.
But there may be some US laws governing off shore actions, I do not know.
Also since it is a civil case, the only issue really is to convince a jury that there is a connection... And, as Cobra pointed out, to get the case taken before a US jury.. that a US court has jurisdiction over what a US company does offshore.... That alone may be groundbreaking for environmental law as I have heard of other countries which have actually been paid to be used as repositories for toxic waste.
Actually, US courts are chosen all the time for cases involving environmental actions overseas of companies incorporated and headquartered in the US. See, for example, the current case about Chevron-Texaco's action in Ecuador. Extraterritorial application of US law has been around for decades in investment, trade and tax cases, and it has been attempted several times more recently in health and environment cases (several countries and even some Brazilian states have sued US tobacco companies in US courts for health damages to their citizens from smoking - most got tossed out, but I believe some are still pending). I can't count the number of international negotiations I witnessed during the 1980s and 1990s where the US delegation reserved the right to extraterritorial application of US law, especially where it involves US corporations such as AES.
Look, this case involves both trade and environment law, and since it's filed in a US court, it'll likely rest largely on interpretation of US law, not international conventions to which the US is not a Party (although the lawyers may argue that AES should have realized that since the DR is a Party to Basel, exporting the ash there from PR would be considered as violating DR law (i.e., that AES did not do its due diligence).
It's been a very long time since I looked at RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), which governs US hazardous waste matters (including exports), and associated regulations, but my recollection is that you cannot export a potentially hazardous waste to another nation unless there exists a bilateral accord setting out standards and procedures for doing so, as the US has with Mexico and Canada, but not the DR.
Look, this case involves both trade and environment law, and since it's filed in a US court, it'll likely rest largely on interpretation of US law, not international conventions to which the US is not a Party (although the lawyers may argue that AES should have realized that since the DR is a Party to Basel, exporting the ash there from PR would be considered as violating DR law (i.e., that AES did not do its due diligence).
It's been a very long time since I looked at RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), which governs US hazardous waste matters (including exports), and associated regulations, but my recollection is that you cannot export a potentially hazardous waste to another nation unless there exists a bilateral accord setting out standards and procedures for doing so, as the US has with Mexico and Canada, but not the DR.
Its obvious to me that someone got paid to allow them to dump this crap in this country.
these corporations know very well that they can always find a corrupt official that they can buy in these third world countries.
I hope that this company gets their arses sued, and also that those that allowed this to happen in this country get whats coming to them. but then again, I am a dreamer.