Subscribe (free)
About NaturalNews
Contact Us
Write for NaturalNews
Media Info
Advertising Info
FEMA trailers

Victims of toxic FEMA trailers cannot sue government, rules Big Brother federal judge

Saturday, February 04, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Tags: FEMA trailers, toxic chemicals, lawsuit

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
(NaturalNews) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will not be held responsible for providing toxic, formaldehyde-laden trailers to thousands of displaced individuals following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Courthouse News Service (CNS) reports that Judge Carl Stewart from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has struck down an appeal from 10,000 residents who were harmed by the trailers, claiming that these individuals have no jurisdiction to sue the government.

Even though taxpayers like those injured by the toxic trailers are responsible for funding FEMA, which means they technically helped fund the trailers as well, Judge Stewart does not believe the plaintiffs in the case have subject-matter jurisdiction to go after the agency. In his view, the trailers were provided at "no cost," and "under no obligation."

But the whole premise of the case alleges that FEMA knew about the trailers' formaldehyde problems early on and continued to distribute them to displaced hurricane victims. By failing to admit the problem and take action to remedy it, FEMA inflicted undue injury and even death on victims just to avoid having to deal with future lawsuits, they say.

Though FEMA eventually began to distribute brochures urging trailer dwellers to ventilate the units by opening doors and windows, the agency did not fully disclose the severity of the trailers' toxicity to victims, say the plaintiffs. FEMA also allegedly ignored and manipulated scientific data early on that raised serious red flags about the safety of the trailers.

According to Judge Stewart, the federal government's liability in the matter is dictated according to state law where the alleged wrongful activity took place. In this case, it was in Mississippi and Alabama, both of which grant immunity to the government for such activities during states of emergency. And the three-member panel to whom Judge Stewart wrote his judgment agreed, holding that FEMA had legal immunity while helping with "recovery from an actual disaster."

This ruling demonstrates why it is vitally important for states to exercise extreme caution when allowing the federal government to take over during emergency situations. Depending on the laws in the afflicted state, emergency situations can open the door for all kinds of federal government misconduct for which it may not be held liable.

Sources for this article include:

STAY INFORMED! Free subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter
Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more...
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.