Refused For Cause Without Dishonor

[weishaupt1776]

I would like to keep this thread focused on the aforementioned topic at hand.

From the looks of this info, at first glance, it appears that the EPA attempted to punk somebody & the company refused the order for cause, & maintained their position. This then forced the EPA to have to confer before the order could be valid

http://www.epa.gov/region5/orc/enfac...04/law-cwa.htm

• Region 5 issues CWA 309(a) Administrative Compliance Order to Chaffee Excavating, Vanderbilt, MI On August 20, 2004, Region 5 issued an administrative Findings of Violation and Order for Compliance (“Compliance Order”) under Section 309(a) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a), to Chaffee Excavating, a septage waste hauler located at 477 East Thumb Lake Road, Vanderbilt, Michigan, requiring Chaffee Excavating to comply with an information request issued by Region 5 on May 6, 2004, under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1318, relating to Chaffee Excavating’s compliance with the domestic septage land application requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 503. Chaffee Excavating refused to submit the requested information, challenging U.S. EPA’s authority to issue information requests on numerous grounds and returning a copy of the information request with the phrase “Refused for Cause Without Dishonor” handwritten on each page. The parties subsequently engaged in correspondence, but Chaffee Excavating maintained its challenge to U.S. EPA’s jurisdiction and still refused to provide the requested information. The Compliance Order resulted. Section 309(a)(4) of the CWA requires U.S. EPA to provide Chaffee Excavating with an opportunity to confer before the order becomes effective.

Besides, doesn't the phrase sound cool, too? Dude, I refuse you for cause without dishonor - dude

Okay, here the Neo-Commie/Fascist American Defense League in Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments Part Two By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP states the following:

• "The Court finds that the UCC is inapplicable to the case at bar because none of the parties or factual allegations implicate issues of commercial law.") Gipson v. Callahan (WD Tex 1997) 18 F.Supp.2d 662 app.dism 157 F3d 903(t);

See, the thing is to default them to get them to admit that, by their non-response, that the situation is commercial pursuant to "All crimes are Commercial" & that they are a municipal corporation, etc . .

Actually, these bootlickin' gestapo lovers who wrote this are helping us out by showing comprehensively what to avoid or what lines to read in-between. It is a suggestion of mine, which I will try to follow, that we study these cases & learn how to correctly apply this concept. Look, if we are going to attempt to apply UCC, although the plaintiff has the BoP(Burden of Proof); we would have the BoGF (Burden of Going forward) to show that, since the situation is commercial(with tons of proof), we are here for settlement & closure.

Man, this Sussman guy really has a bone to pick. Maybe if he dropped all those abbreviations after his last name, he might have to actually get a productive job & actually be a productive member of society instead of being a "Suckman". Click below & you'll see why. I mean this guy is really helping us out pursuant to the book of Romans 8:28 in the Armaic Scriptures
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp