1. Ah, yes, the deadly ‘no jurisdiction’ attack. The EPA isn’t constrained by the courts or anyone, so of course their gruesome ‘black-lung’ experiments are exempt from independent review.

  2. Too long away from THE LAW, but it appears to my foggy brain that they are trying to treat this Motion to Dismiss/Trial, as an Agency Action, which it is not?

  3. It is an agency action — i.e., agency researchers doing bad things to human guinea pigs they lied to.

  4. Sure, and I’m probably just splitting hairs, but it appears they are so adept at dealing with things on an agency level that when they get into “real court” they don’t know how to respond properly. If I understand correctly, they are claiming a lack of jurisdiction under the ADA, but as far as I understand it, the claim for injuctive relief has nothing to do with any agency adjudication. In other words, no action has ever been raised in this matter before their own administrative (kangaroo) court. Sort of makes their argument spurious at best.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *