Ripoff Report > (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF Review

Ripoff Report is a forum for people to post true complaints that can help other people by informing them about a problem. It is also a good forum for a business to show the world how it responds to customer complaints. Ripoff Report is not a forum for people to post false complaints, or personal attacks. And, Ripoff Report is not a place for people to commit extortion.

Ripoff Report has dedicated enormous time and resources to protecting free speech. Complaints can make businesses people angry. Complaints that expose scams and frauds make scamming fraudsters very, very angry. Angry people can put pressure on authors to recant, to take it back, to take it down. Ripoff Report protects free speech in several ways, including not ever taking down reports so that there is no use to pressure an author about it and every reason to show the world how to resolve a complaint with courtesy and respect. Ripoff Report also fights lawsuits against taking down reports, and dozens and dozens of times Ripoff Report has defeated lawsuits that attempt to suppress free speech and force the takedown of reports.

Ripoff Report does not take down reports for money. If there is a false report posted, there are many policies that allow the false statements to be rebutted, disproven, exposed as false, and at times even removed from the website. There is a program sponsored by Ripoff Report, designed to be much much easier and less expensive than a lawsuit, called VIP Arbitration. It allows a challenge to a statement to prove that it is false, a defense by the author, and a decision by a neutral arbitrator based on the evidence. False statements can be identified and refuted in this manner. And, the law allows and encourages the Ripoff Report to use good judgment to show the results of the arbitration, and even to redact the contents that someone posted.

Ripoff Report is taking a stand against abuse of the website, and its carefully designed programs to protect free speech. Some people abuse the website by using it for personal attacks, or using it as leverage to harm and extort other people. One of those people is Crystal Cox. Cox has a pattern of behavior that Ripoff Report finds offensive, harmful and disgusting. Here is how the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals described this pattern of behavior in an official written opinion:

ABOUT THE RIPOFF REPORT BELOW

“ . . . Crystal Cox published blog posts on several websites that she created, accusing [her victim] of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and other illegal activities in connection with the Summit bankruptcy. Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”

That conduct is wrong. It is disgusting. Ripoff Report is against that kind of thing.

Here is a link to an article on the Ripoff Report that is all about Crystal Cox, and what she does, and how some of it is protected as free speech by the laws of the United States.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/REDACTED-BY-EDITOR-DUE-TO-ABUSE-OF-WEBSITE/Las-Vegas-Nevada/Crystal-Cox-lost-case-in-9th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Cox-apparently-has-a-history-of-1112488

Well, the law has to protect some speech that is bad speech, in order to protect everyone’s right to free speech. But, Ripoff Report has freedom of speech too. And Ripoff Report chooses to exercise its right to free speech by NOT GIVING CRYSTAL COX A VOICE ON RIPOFF REPORT. That’s right. We did some research and looks like Crystal Cox has used and abused Ripoff Report somewhere around 45 times. And, Ripoff Report does not respect Crystal Cox or what she does, so she she can’t voice her opinions or post her allegations or say anything at all on Ripoff Report website. If we detect her trying to post things, we will not allow it to post. Ripoff Report believes she has abused the opportunity to post on the website and so she loses the opportunity. What about the things she already posted? Well, we are going to redact the heck out of it so that it doesn’t hurt anyone, but the world can see just what kind of garbage it is. And we are posting this statement for everyone to read.

What else?

Ripoff Report will repeat some interesting things written by others about Crystal Cox. In the opinion of one very intelligent and wise author named Ken White who was speaking about the law (you can see the full article in the links above) “We protect the Nazis’ right to march at Skokie . . . We protect the right of Fred Phelps’ family to protest funerals even though the America of Phelps dreams is a theocratic hellhole . . . So it shouldn’t be any surprise that we protect the free speech rights of the disturbed and vengeful blogger Crystal Cox, even though she abuses the legal system in an effort to censor and retaliate against people for criticizing her. That’s how we roll.”

Mr. White documents several additional examples of reprehensible conduct by Crystal Cox, and his article is an excellent and interesting read about why it is important to protect free speech, even for people who do bad things.

It is also important to exercise free speech rights AGAINST people who do bad things like Cox does. So, Ripoff Report is standing against Cox and the way she abuses people and the internet.

(((REDACTED))) Holdings Company is poisoning the air and water of (((REDACTED))).

(((REDACTED)))

"The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state environmental agency's determination that an EIS was not necessary for a proposed biomass cogeneration project at a kraft pulp and paper mill.

An environmental group argued that by not preparing an EIS, the agency failed to adequately consider the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and demand for woody biomass from the state's forests. But the agency correctly concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from the project would not have significant environmental impacts.

The agency properly considered the legislative policy behind Rev. Wash. Code §70.235.020(3), which demonstrates the legislature's preference for the burning of woody biomass over the burning of other fuels. In addition, the agency's determination of no significance contained sufficient information to weigh the environmental impacts of the project.

The agency also correctly concluded that the project would not result in adverse impacts to forest resources. And because the project is an energy recovery facility that has been burning solid waste since before January 1, 1989, the agency correctly concluded that an EIS is not required under Rev. Wash. Code §70.95.700."

(((REDACTED)))

Paper mill air pollution standards 25 years out of date, environmental groups sue EPA" ~ the EPA is NOT above the Law. If the EPA Ignores You, File Criminal Charges. Make a STAND.

"Three advocacy groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency last week over concerns that regulations for paper mills emissions are 25 years out of date.

Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity and (((REDACTED))) AirWatchers filed suit on Dec. 6 under a clause of the Clean Air Act that allows citizens to hold the EPA accountable for carrying out the provisions of the act.

The EPA last reviewed the New Source Performance Standards for kraft pulp mills in 1986. The mills use a chemical process to turn wood chips into pulp to make paper. The standards, by law, are supposed to be reviewed every eight years.

“This is about how much pollution that people living near paper mills have to breathe,” said Helen Kang, the lawyer representing Greenpeace and (((REDACTED))) AirWatchers. “Why does it take a lawsuit from the citizens to do a job that the agency has neglected for 25 years, when the duty is so clear?”

EPA said it is reviewing the lawsuit and could not comment in detail. Asked why it hasn’t reviewed the regulations since 1986, the agency said it has requested and received data from the kraft pulp mill industry to be used in developing rules next year.

(((REDACTED))) pulp mills emit a host of pollutants, including some that have been linked to heart and lung disease and global warming.

Reviews every eight years are supposed to ensure regulations keep up with new technology for reducing pollution. Allowing 25 years to pass without reviewing regulations means they’re sorely out of date, the groups said.

“When you’re protecting people’s health and protecting the environment, it’s even more important to follow through and do these reviews,” said (((REDACTED))), director of (((REDACTED))) AirWatchers.

Under the existing New Source Performance Standards, only particulate matter and total reduced sulfur are regulated. (((REDACTED))) pulp mills also emit pollutants including volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide and greenhouse gases.

Without an EPA review, it’s difficult to determine which other air pollutants should be regulated, (((REDACTED))) said.

The EPA acknowledges in a public notice that the data used to determine the New Source Performance Standards is dated. The agency said it is aware of “significant changes … in the number of affected facilities, in industry ownership practices and in emission collection and control configurations.”

EPA and the environmental groups have until the end of February to reach an agreement before the case proceeds in court. “We want either EPA to agree to a schedule of when they’re going to complete the rulemaking, or if they’re not willing to agree, we’ll have the court decide that,” (((REDACTED))) said."

(((REDACTED)))

(((REDACTED)))

For More information

(((REDACTED)))

You are Breathing Toxic Air, and that is a FACT; Do your Homework.

(((REDACTED)))

(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Chairman of the Board
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	President, Chief Executive Officer, Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, Treasurer
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Vice President, General Counsel
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Vice President, President - construction technologies segment
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Vice President, President - Energy Services Segment
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director
(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	(((REDACTED)))	Independent Director

Posted here PROUDLY by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

Complaint Review: (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE)))

(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) Air Pollution, Water Poisoning, Soil Toxin. (((REDACTED)))

Paper mill air pollution standards 25 years out of date, environmental groups sue EPA" ~ the EPA is NOT above the Law. If the EPA Ignores You, File Criminal Charges. Make a STAND.