Dear friends, neighbors and allies,
As the announced date of eviction at Standing Rock (December 5th) draws
near, events are being held around the country and the world to show
solidarity with the thousands of brave people seeking to protect a crucial
water source by blocking the continuance of the Dakota Access Pipe Line.
Tomorrow, Saturday December 3rd, our picket line at the CPV site in
Wawayanda NY will be devoted to STANDING IN SOLIDARITY WITH STANDING ROCK.
These fights are the same fight: it’s not ok to frack gas (in PA, for
example); it’s not ok to burn fracked gas (in Wawayanda, for example);
it’s not ok to run fracked gas through dangerous pipelines (from Westtown
to Wawayanda via the Valley Lateral, for example); and it’s not ok to run
oil (also often fracked) across many hundreds of miles and crossing one of
the major rivers of this continent.
IT’S NOT OKAY; NONE OF IT IS ANYWHERE NEAR OKAY. And whatever else is
going on in the world, saying NO to something that is wrong is, quite
simply, the right thing to do.
Please join us tomorrow to send a message of solidarity to the brave souls
facing violence daily at Standing Rock; they are on the front lines of the
battle that is our battle, too. Please bring signs if you can that say
“Standing With Standing Rock” or “No DAPL” or similar messages.
We meet from 11-noon at 3300 Route 6, Middletown, NY.
For more information on supporting Standing Rock, visit
On another note: The lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt building at the
CPV plant until a new Environmental Impact Study has been completed is
still awaiting hearing in the appellate court. Please see, below, attorney
Michael Sussman’s recently-filed motion to expedite hearing of the case.
This is the second such motion he has filed.
And join us tomorrow! Let’s halt construction before they fill the diesel
and ammonia tanks.
We are all firefighters now,
TriStates Unite for Safe Energy
AFFIRMATION OF MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN
1. I am lead counsel for plaintiffs/appellants. I make this
Affirmation on information known to me to be true.
2. This matter has been fully submitted for eight months.
3. On one prior occasion, I moved unsuccessfully to expedite
consideration of this appeal. Respondents opposed that application.
4. Work on constructing the CPV power plant has continued in
Wawayanda, New York. In the meantime, earlier this week, the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has indicted
respondent CPVâs Senior Vice President for External Affairs for
bribery and public corruption relating to this very project. Exhibit
1 hereto is the Complaint filed with the Court and the accompanying
narrative which enumerates the bribery related to this very site
engaged in by the respondent in this case; Exhibit 2 is the Indictment
filed on November 22, 2016.
5. Respondent filed for site plan approval for a massive power
plant in Orange County in or about 2009. It did not fully
complete SEQR review before the Town Planning Board approved it.
In early 2015, having not yet commenced construction, respondent
submitted a new application for site plan approval, making changes
to the approved site plan. Petitioners and hundreds of others
from the Town and region asked the Town Planning Board to require
the respondent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement [SEIS], arguing, inter alia, that in 2013, when the
Board approved the first site plan, Governor Cuomo had not
promulgated the current ban on fracking in New York, that this
plant depended on fracked natural gas, that production,
distribution and use of fracked natural gas caused dangerous
externalities which respondent had never assessed as part of its
FEIS and that inducing hydro-fracking in our neighboring state,
Pennsylvania, was contrary to our own stateâs ban on this
process, announced in December 2014.
6. Notwithstanding these and other arguments, the Town Planning Board
did not require an SEIS and Supreme Court dismissed the underlying
Article 78 proceeding which timely challenged this decision. This Court
should halt construction of this project until an SEIS is completed by an
independent party, restoring some degree of public confidence in a
project which is plainly compromised by the corruption which lies at its
heart. The public does not know what other corrupt practices the company
engaged in while gaining a myriad of approvals and there has bene no
publicly announced review of its permits to provide any degree of
WHEREFORE, this Court should expedite the appeal and, in
deciding the appeal, should enter an Order requiring the
DEIS to be completed before further work is done on this