Safe, well maintained commercial trucks from Mexicosuch as this one belonging to Transportes Olympic is what OOIDA and other opponents of Mexican trucking are trying to stop, and failing miserably.
OOIDA has filed its final reply brief April 4 in its frivolous DC Circuit Court of Appeals lawsuit to try and stop the Mexico Cross Border Pilot program. FMCSA has also filed it’s reply to OOIDA’s reply. Confused yet? It gets better.
For the record, the case in question is 11-1251. The document is 185 pages of the most convoluted “crap” one would ever want to read and is easily disproven by FMCSA’s reply.
OOIDA’s claims are nothing new from the smoke they’ve been blowing up peoples asses for more than 10 years.
They claim that;
- Elements of the program are precluded and illegal under Federal statutes. These include the ability to grant operating authority to Mexican carriers, acceptance of Mexican Licencia Federal de Conductors and the validity of Mexican medical certificates.
- The claim that OOIDA has granted exemptions and exception to Mexican carriers without following proper procedures.
- They question the level of “safety” achieved citing perceived differences in Mexican licensing standards, drug testing and medical standards, and finally,
- OOIDA is making the ludicrous claim that Mexican carriers will be held to lesser, more lax standards than their US counterparts.
You can download the entire 185 brief by clicking on the box below.
Download OOIDA Reply
FMCSA, in their reply brief, counters all of the bogus arguments made by OOIDA’s attorneys.
The governments brief is available for study by clicking on the box below.
Download FMCSA Reply
In response to OOIDA’s unsubstantiated claims, FMCSA argument is quite transparent and simple to understand. FMCSA positions are;
- OOIDA has not established or met it’s burden to prove standing in the case. In other words, there is no evidence that any OOIDA member has been or will be harmed economically or otherwise by the continuation of this program.
- FMCSA counters OOIDA’s arguments that Mexican carriers will not be required to comply with US regulation by pointing out that not only will they be required to comply, there are additional and unique requirements they must comply with that are not required of US or Canadian carriers and that the programs requirements are consistent with all US regulations.
- At the end of the argument, which is contained in the 74 page brief, that OOIDA’s arguments lack merit, something we’ve argued all along and firmly debunked.
Take a moment to download the briefs and make your own decision. FMCSA’s brief details minutely the history and the law that permits them to establish the pilot program and thoroughly blows out of the water, all the claims you’ve heard from OOIDA over the years trashing Mexico and it’s transportation industry.
If you notice while reading OOIDA’s brief and the accompanying government response, OOIDA’s agenda is crystal clear. Subvert, confuse and cloud the issue for their members and when all else fails, outright lie. OOIDA’s brief constantly whines about how FMCSA does not provide the most minute details for public comment. FMCSA addresses that and also addresses another whine by OOIDA that some documents are not translated into English. FMCSA’s response? Nothing in the statutes requires them to provide translation services to OOIDA.
Loading …
Trucker Ronnie Earl Ricks, 61, of Pasadena, TX – 50 years for marijuana smuggling
A Texas trucker caught hauling around 2,400 pounds of pot through Montgomery County (Tx) in July probably will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Judge Fred Edwards, of the 9th state District Court, sentenced Ronnie Earl Ricks, 61, of Pasadena, to 50 years in prison during a sentencing hearing Thursday morning. A Montgomery County jury had convicted Ricks of first-degree felony possession of marijuana.
Ricks’ 18-wheeler was brokedown in the northbound main lanes of U.S. 59 July 6 when a Precinct 4 Constable’s deputy happened upon it. When the deputy questioned Ricks, his story didn’t add up, Precinct 4 Constable Kenneth “Rowdy” Hayden previously said.
Ricks’ log books did not match his story, Hayden said, so deputies searched the trailer. They found 2,400 pounds of marijuana,worth millions of dollars, hidden among produce in the trailer.
The truck was loaded down near the Texas-Mexico border and went through a Border Patrol checkpoint in Saritas Texas.
During the investigation, authorities checked records at the checkpoint, at a motel in the valley that Ricks supposedly stayed at and nothing matched what he said to investigators and prosecutors.
The entire time, Ricks and his family lied and were generally uncooperative with investigators and the Court.
Landeline Now , the in house rag of OOIDA, picked up on this story, presumably to use to to continue their opposition to Mexican trucks in the US. But to the contrary, this continues to prove our position that drugs don’t come across the border in great quantities in trucks, but instead, are crossed by other methods, stored in a stash house on this side of the border until a greedy US trucker such as Ricks, is found to haul them.
Other stories covering this event claim that Ricks was being “used as a drug mule by a Mexican cartel”. Certainly, the drugs were owned by a TCO (Trans-National Criminal Organization), not a cartel, but Ricks certainly wasn’t being “used”. He was in it for the profit, claiming he had three young children to support after the death of his wife. Still no excuse.
The sentence while stiff, is just, even though Canadian trucker Gaston Danjou received a sentence last week in Las Vegas Nevada of six years in prison for his role in an operation that smuggled more than $1.2 million dollars worth of cocaine through Nevada. Danjou, who will be allowed to serve that sentence in a Canadian prison, will be eligible for parole in 17 months, counting time already spent in custody.
From THE TRUCKER- Essentially saying they have “no dog in the hunt,” the Department of Transportation and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Wednesday responded to lawsuits by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the International Brotherhood of Teamster challenging the legality of the cross-border trucking pilot program.
“OOIDA’s members are not regulated by the program, or eligible to participate in it, and therefore its standing cannot be presumed,” the DOT and FMCSA said in their response. “OOIDA’s allegation of an increased risk of injury to its member is not sufficient … absent a showing that some identifiable member of the group faces a ‘substantially’ increased risk of harm and that the overall risk of such harm is ‘substantial.’”
The response said that OOIDA’s competitive standing arguments are also flawed.
“OOIDA cannot show that the program will almost surely cause its members to lose business, because the vast majority of the cross-border deliveries are likely to be made in the commercial zones by carriers already authorized to operate there and because Mexico-domiciled carriers are prohibited from making point-to-point deliveries of domestic freight.”
The pilot program creates a double standard, OOIDA said.
“The obligation of the U.S. under NAFTA to provide national treatment to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers is in complete harmony with U.S. statutes and regulations governing motor carrier safety,” OOIDA said in its suit.
“The respondent’s (DOT and FMCSA) pilot program goes well beyond what is required to provide national treatment to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and drivers. The pilot program violates a number of federal statutes and regulations, causing prejudice to U.S. motor carriers and drivers who must follow all U.S. safety regulations while their Mexican counterparts are instead allowed to comply with selected Mexican regulations.
There is not a single word in FMCSA’s proposal or final order explaining why this double standard has been created.”
In filing its suit against the program, the Teamsters said the FMCSA had failed to comply with safety statutes and regulations that expressly govern the granting of any long-haul operating authority to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and ensure the safe operation of trucks on the nation’s highways.
The Teamsters said that FMCSA had created a program that was not assured of having a sufficient or representative sample of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to yield valid findings and merely presumes — but cannot demonstrate — that Mexico-domiciled trucks are as safe as their U.S. counterparts.
The DOT and FMCSA response noted that Teamster members were not regulated by the program or eligible to participate in it.
Their response also said that “Congress has enacted multiple statutes containing preconditions for any test of opening the border to long-haul operations by Mexico-domiciled carriers.
“FMCSA has explained how the pilot program challenges here meet each of those preconditions as well as the existing motor carrier safety laws and regulations,” the agency said.
Mexican trucks such as these two are the targeted obsession of Teamsters, OOIDA and their allies whose lawsuit against allowing them legally required access has now been consolidated by the DC Court of Appeals
The two separate and frivolous lawsuits filed last year by the Teamsters, Public Citizen, Sierra Club and Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) have now been consolidated into one lawsuit on orders from a Judge with the D.C. Court of Appeals.
The case numbers for the two actions are 11-1444 for the Teamsters and 11-1251 for OOIDA.
Attorney’s for all plaintiffs will now be required to make their oral arguments before the Court in the same courtroom on the same day.
Back in July of 2011, OOIDA filed their frivolous action against the Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico asking the court to “enjoin, set-aside, suspend (in whole or in part) or determine the validity of the implementation of (DOT’s cross-border program).” In September of 2011, the Court refused their request for the injunction sought to stop the program, but did agree to put it on the fast track.
Later in September of last year, the Teamsters, along with the shady advocacy group Public Citizen and the tree huggers from Sierra Club filed their own and very similar lawsuit to stop the program with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That action, with all parties agreeing, was kicked over to the DC Circuit later in 2011, denying Hoffa and his cronies their foray into “judge shopping”.
Both lawsuits are “frivolous and without merit” as they closely parallel a cases filed by the same groups in 2002.
Those lawsuits voiced the same environmental concerns as are being pressed in the 2011 filings. The trial court in 2002 sided with FMCSA saying
that although the FMCSA pilot program would result in more trucks, FMCSA did not have control over those trucks and therefore did not have to account for them in an EIS. Public Citizen went shopping and appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the trial court. The Appellate Court found that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact from the Mexican trucks. Of course, FMCSA appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 2004 with a unanimous verdict being rendered on June 7, 2004.
The US Supreme Court held that the FMCSA had no control of the trucks once the regulations governing the pilot program were passed, and would therefore be unable to act on the findings of an EIS even if it did conduct one.
FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.
The Court also found that the passage of the regulations was not sufficiently responsible for the increased pollution caused by the trucks to warrant an EIS.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the Courts most conservative Judge wrote the opinion which you can read here.
Merging these two lawsuits will make it easier and quicker for the sitting judges to toss them as a whole when they are argued before the Court. This will clear the way for more Mexican carriers to apply to the program without having to worry about it being a waste of time and money for them to do so.
OOIDA denied injunction by DC Circuit Court to stop safe, well maintained rigs such as this one owned by Transportes Potosino out of San Luis Potosi SP from entering the US under the current pilot program.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the injunction sought by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) in their attempt to stop the Mexican cross border pilot program.
According to TODAYS TRUCKING, the Court did agree to fast track the frivolous lawsuit meaning written arguments could be accepted as early as December. Oral arguments will be scheduled after the initial round of filings.
It is also being reported that the petition for review, filed by the Teamsters and Public Citizen in the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, will instead be heard by the D.C. Court of Appeals also. So much for Judge shopping by the Teamsters.
The Department of Justice, which represents the Department of Transportation in the lawsuits, filed an unopposed motion to transfer Public Citizen’s case to the DC Circuit. The motion does not address combination of the two lawsuits. However, similar cases filed during the previous cross-border program were combined. Those lawsuits were lost by the plaintiffs as we imagine both of these baseless and frivolous actions will be.
An opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in response to a lawsuit filed by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) against the mandate for Electronic Onboard Recorders (EOBR’s) has effectively vacated the regulation for now based on the argument of “driver harassment” and sent it back to the FMCSA for reconsideration and a possible rewrite.
This is a major victory for US truckers who have fought against the implementation of this regulation. However, the fight continues as two Senators, Lamar Alexander and David Prior have a bill pending before Congress which would make this requirement law.
“It’s a fantastic decision,” OOIDA President Jim Johnston said. “The decision dealt with the issue of harassment of drivers, but the court left room to come back and challenge other aspects if the agency gets overly enthusiastic about how they want to monitor truckers.”
OOIDA had presented three arguments as to why the regulation should be set aside, but Circuit Judge Diane Wood, stated that the court “need address only the first issue” of driver harassment.
Judge Wood’s opinion stated; “that if an agency “fails to consider a factor mandated by its organic statues, this omission is alone ‘sufficient to establish an arbitrary-and-capricious decision requiring vacatur of the rule.”
You can read more about the ruling at LANDLINEMAG.
This is what OOIDA was established to do and they have our full support in their endeavors such as this. Wasting time and money fighting the Mexican cross border program, a cause the United States is morally and legally obligated to comply with is not only a waste of resources by OOIDA but does severe damage to their credibility as an association supporting truckers because of the methods they have employed in the past and continue to use.
But congratulations to all who was responsible for this win. It gives all of us a little extra breathing room from the nanny regs that FMCSA seems determined to shove down our throats.
The Government of Mexico provided information to ICE in 2007 alleging numerous companies and individuals were involved in stealing petroleum products from the Mexican oil company PEMEX, and for selling the stolen petroleum in the United States.
I.C.E. News Release
HOUSTON – A criminal information charging three men for their roles in brokering the sale of petroleum products stolen from Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) has been unsealed following the guilty plea of the third defendant on Friday. These convictions were announced by U.S. Attorney Tim Johnson, Southern District of Texas, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The charges resulted from an on-going ICE investigation into the theft of Mexican petroleum products, particularly condensate, and the transportation and sale of the petroleum product to U.S. companies.
Read more
Vice President Dick Cheney indicted in prisoner abuse case
McALLEN, Texas-(AP) A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers.
The indictment criticizes Cheney’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and “at least misdemeanor assaults” on detainees by working through the prison companies.
Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.
Another indictment charges state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. with profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies.
The indictments were first reported by KRGV-TV.
Hearing on Cheney indictment turns chaotic
Read more
Readers Reponses