| by Charles Bedell, Sec. and Trustee, Lincoln Heritage Institute
1998
Recent stories told to Congress regarding the tactics of gun-toting IRSagents, brought to mind a rumor I had heard a couple of years ago regarding the use of the same shock troop tactics used by EPA agents at a refinery inCalifornia. I tracked down that story and found that it was a true and that the details are shockingly similar to those surrounding the IRS armedincursions.
In the early morning hours of an April morning in 1995, the employees of a Texaco refinery in California were going peacefully about their businesswhen their routine was suddenly and violently interrupted. In a surprise search and seizure operation, 35-40 agents, a number with weapons drawn,rushed into the facility. They were led by the EPA and the forces included agents from several federal and state agencies. Fanning out through therefinery, armed men entered the central operations control room. Apparently knowing nothing about the functioning of a refinery, the armed agents forcedthe Texaco employees away from their control panels under threat. Despite the employees' pleas detailing the nature of the threats posed by a refinerywith nobody at the controls, the armed agents kept the employees away! For over eight hours, this went on until the agents had seized all of therecords and computer files they could find. Not only were the employeesthreatened with weapons, but they were also directly prevented from trying to contact company attorneys for help!
What were the "criminal" activities that necessitated this armed invasionof the refinery? Did the brave EPA agents have reason to think that they would be attacked by the Texaco technicians? The truth is that theviolations which the EPA characterized as "criminal" to the Court which authorized the search included allegations of false record keeping, failureto file required reports and some alleged "persistent" violations of air or water regulations! There was no imminent or even real threat to publichealth or the environment.
There apparently was a history of poor personal relations between EPA and Texaco officials at this refinery. The refinery personnel were running the refinerycorrectly and legally, and would not defer to the whims of the EPA agents.When someone dares to stand up to them or is felt to be "uncooperative", the EPA has a tendency to be less than patient. One tactic they use to force their views oncitizens is to threaten to transform a civil investigation into a criminalone.
Congress and state legislatures have vied with one another to see who can bethe "toughest". One way to do that has been to adopt legislative languagewhich while aimed at real and serious situations, not imagined can also be used by government agents who make things like failing to keep proper records criminaloffenses. This gives the EPA and other agencies a really big stick to threaten citizens with and to prevent them from asserting their rights. Should an alleged failure to keep proper records be a criminal offensenecessitating an armed invasion of a business's offices, let alone the vitalrefinery control room? As a former prosecutor, if agents would have come to me asking me to go before a court to request the sanctioning of an armed invasion of a refinery, I would have refused. I would have called their supervisors and demanded that someone with a cooler head and more concern for public safety be put in charge. The place to look for records would logically be in the company offices? Why was it necessary to endanger the employees, agents, and families living near the refinery by forcingtechnicians away from their posts at gun point? Refineries and other facilities which could pose a threat to public health or the environment have had emergency response plans to deal with loss of their control rooms due to accidents and some even had anti-terrorist plans. They obviously work. However, it is probably correct to say that none of these emergency plans included an armed take over by agents of the U.S. government!
|
