Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />1.2 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />kM <br />IR <br />The dei -=-ion of "disresal" in section _-7113 _.^.clud--s <br />acand-_=ent. Therefcre r_ anandcnind the waste 3 sc <br />c...c_ Szree-, Ce-3nCan-s eaai_V C-sDOsed c ____a_....�s iJaste. i <br />A recent appella-e case has affirmed this Cef_nizicr is <br />ccnsti-azionai_'_i _ __cise a -t does not reCu'_re an-.- cf -__e <br />waste. People v Taylor, supra. <br />_n addition to ispesa_ by abandonment, Defendants herein <br />disposed of hazardous waste because several containers o* <br />hazardous Waste :_c':e leaked. See photos attached as =Xh_ _= 1. <br />It is not a defense tc state that Defendants aLa n0- nave <br />the financial a-cilitV to pay for proper discosai.the I <br />=ayler case is right on poi^-. The court in that case cc_nted c -,t <br />i <br />-_haat this is a crime of commission, that def=ndan-s :were culpab_v <br />'egligenr in allow -_ a the acc=ulazion of la_ae a-.c--,rzs of <br />__azardcus waste without mal.ing sufficient arrange:rents for its <br />removal. Taylor at page 691. Defendants clearly were not <br />I <br />confronted with an unforseeable independent act which. would sever <br />their liability. People V. McGee (1947) 31 C2d 229, 240. <br />4. DEFENDANTS ARE CRIMINALLY LI_ABLE BOTH BASED ON THEIR CORPORATE <br />POSITIONS AND BASED ON THEIR OWN ACTIONS TAKEN IN REGARD TO <br />HAZARDOUS WASTE AND FINANCIAL DECISIONS AT RV CIRCUITS. <br />The three defendants were the principal officers and the <br />only owners of RV Circuits. It was their principal occupation in <br />'_993. They had offices there and were at the site daily. <br />Regulatory officials spoke with them regarding their hazardous <br />waste problems and all three of them were on misdemeanor <br />