Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />,2 <br />13 <br />14 <br />2. THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE <br />The terms „f the negotiated settlement were '_n a <br />January :,, :405 memo from The District Attorne;'� 3__-ce, a copy ' <br />I <br />of which is in the court file. Essentiallv, Defendants were <br />promised a 4 month tcn on a felony local if the_: ca_d --'0,C00 <br />each for cleanup before sentencing. At the time this brief was <br />filed, no hazardous waste had been removed nor any evidence <br />received of substantial effort to contract for removal. See <br />declarat'_ons. F..r the reasons exp al.ned below, _he arae <br />that the maximi -1-7 sentence cf one year be imposed ___-additicr. t_ <br />the specific probation terms detailed in the me=. <br />3. DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT CAUSED ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE TO HE REMOVED <br />FROM THE FACILITY AND THEREFORE AND THEY HAVE NOT CCMPLETED THE <br />ACTS NECESSARY TO RECEIVE THE 4 MONTH TOP. <br />15 I The coint cf t^e settlement was to try to V_ -t e <br />Defendants <br />V <br />16 II to take sufficient immediate action to remove the :__=zardcus waste <br />17 from the site which would allow the property owner zz re=_ the <br />18 property again. Settlement discussions focused c- treating the <br />19 waste water on site and 'having the hazardous wase ad materials <br />20 removed from the site. The terms were clear: spe__d 1--_^,000 eac'- <br />21 towards removal of waste prior to April 17, 1996. This has not <br />22 been done. No waste has been removed or treated as of the date of <br />23 filing this brief. The opportunity for a 4 month top is gone. <br />24 Prior to this case being filed there had been some dialogue <br />25 <br />between Defendant Smith and the agencies of whet`_er he (or <br />26 <br />someone under his supervision) could still treat the waste water <br />27 <br />28 i 5 <br />i <br />