‘Frack Gag’ Bans Children From Talking About Fracking, Forever

[LanternWaste]

When drilling company Range Resources offered the Hallowich family a $750,000 settlement to relocate from their fracking-polluted home in Washington County, Pennsylvania, it came with a common restriction. Chris and Stephanie Hallowich would be forbidden from ever speaking about fracking or the Marcellus Shale. But one element of the gag order was all new. The Hallowichs’ two young children, ages 7 and 10, would be subject to the same restrictions, banned from speaking about their family’s experience for the rest of their lives.

It’s not the only time gas exploration companies have gone to great lengths to keep the health problems caused by fracking under wraps. A 2012 Pennsylvania law requires companies to tell doctors the chemical contents of fracking fluids, so long as doctors don’t reveal that information, even to patients they are treating for fracking-related illness.

Sharon Wilson, and organizer with Earthworks, said that was the point. “These gag orders are the reason [drillers] can give testimony to Congress and say there are no documented cases of contamination. And then elected officials can repeat that.” She makes it clear she doesn’t blame the families who take the settlements. “They do what they have to do to protect themselves and their children.”

Wary of the bad press for putting a lifetime gag order on two minors, Pizzarella told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that “we don’t believe the [Hallowich] settlement applies to children.” This, despite ready availability of the settlement transcript, in which the company’s lawyer states “I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it.”



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/02/2401591/frack-gag-for-kids/






Typically chilling responses from the industry...

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. These companies are EVIL!

I would look into having the family dog write an expose on the affair.

[Th1onein]

5. DUzy!

[cali]

2. Good luck with enforcing that. I don't see how this is legal

it's a contract and the children are too young to enter into it. Maybe their parents can enter into it for them while they're still minors, but how could it extend beyond their majority?

Maybe a DU attorney can tell me if I'm wrong.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Not an attorey

just a legal "hobbyist", but I am not aware of any case law where legal agreements entered into by parents were binding on the children once they reached their majority. Of course, knowing these twisted bastards, they will come back when the children hit 18 and offer them money to shut up.

[Orrex]

10. If I had to guess...

I would suppose that a settlement includes some language along the lines of "any family member who, upon reaching the age of majority, receives, accepts, or is beneficiary of this settlement shall likewise be bound by its term or else forfeit the entirety of the settlement amount plus damages." It would probably also say something about the parents' settlement being contingent upon the minor children's silence, so they'll need to keep their kids' mouths shut.

In such a case, if the parents hope to pass on any of the settlement, then everybody better shut up about it.


Neat and tidy!

[localroger]

13. Unless the settlement includes ongoing payments or a trust, that won't work

Most likely the settlement is a payment to the parents. Once the kids are adults they can't be held accountable for the contract terms unless they are being directly given something at that time that can be withheld, and the parents can't be held liable for anything the kids do. If the company tries to enforce something like that against the parents because the adult kids talked, they will go down in flames in court.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Except that such a legal agreement could not be extended to minor children

Contracts entered into by parents/guardians affecting a minor are not binding after they reach age 18, unless the "newly minted adult" signs a the contract. Parents/guardians may be legally liable for the actions of minor children, but once they reach 18, that liability pretty much stops.

You cannot legally obligate anyone other than yourself to a contract. A husband cannot be liable for his wife breaking a contract, unless he signed onto the contract as well (though he may suffer financial harm due to sanctions against his wife). Otherwise, I could fill out a loan application and make someone else with better credit a co-signer.

Minors cannot legally enter into contracts, thus once they turn 18 and are no longer subject to their parent's/guardian's authority, they would not be bound by the contract unless they then signed it.

Also, I think it would be highly unlikely that even a minor child could be bound by an NDA his parents signed. How does one control what a ten year old chooses to discuss at school or with friends?

I would love to see this one in court. I doubt the fracking company would be very enthused by the prospect of defending the provision in court.

[Orrex]

26. I would likewise love to see it go to court

I would love for those fuckers to be publicly revealed as the vile parasites that they are.


However, people enter into countless agreements simply by engaging in (or continuing to engage in) some activity or another.
If the now-minor children use any of the $750K settlement upon reaching adulthood, I don't see why the company wouldn't take that as acceptance of the terms of the settlement and thereafter enforce the terms of the settlement upon the now-adult.

I'm not saying that it's noble or right or good; I'm just saying that it seems likely that they'd try something along those lines.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Agreed,

the most egregious examples around now is shrinkwrap/clickwrap licenses. They have never been tested (to my knowledge) in court. Whenever a case looks likely to get to court, the software company settles with an NDA to avoid the possibility of having their entire scam blow up.

Personally, I would love to test the law from the reverse angle. For example, I would like to print on my checks that says "By cashing this check you agree to be bound by the terms of service found on my website at xyz.com." On my website I would disclaim all the BS terms companies claim I am bound to by simply using their service.

Banks for example tell me that by using their card I am bound by a dozen pages of legalese abridging my rights and imposing junk fees and interest rates that even loan sharks would find objectionable. So, my website would specifically disclaim those terms and substitute my own, more reasonable ones.

I'd love to find a law firm willing to give this a try.

[matthews]

32. That's the way I was taught but I haven't seen the inside of a classroom since

2003 and anymore I don't know how the rules and regulations have been weaseled around. And weaseled around they have.

Something has to be done about these people. Seriously. If shit is so bad that they can try to bamboozle and terrorize people into selling away their health and safety and that of their CHILDREN, then it's time everybody come to the realization that this is just bad ju ju. Nothing good will come from this at all. Except for the same few families worldwide that we're propping up the petroleum industry for in the first place.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Upon reflection

if the child has a medical condition caused by fracking and the company is paying into a trust fund against future medical expenses, they could refuse to continue payments unless the the child signed an NDA on turning 18.

Of course, the child (now legally an adult) could then file suit in his own right, negating the silence the company was trying to buy.

[LanternWaste]

20. My thought is that by the time the children are 18, the PR games played by the industry...

My thought is that by the time the children are 18, the PR games played by the industry will have either already worked or already failed without the testimony of the children; and that win or lose, the game will be over.

Thinking about it, how many corporate misdeeds older than ten years does the public really pay attention to? My guess is outside of two or three really egregious examples if breaking the public trust (Exxon Valdez, Enron), we often forget one scandal at the expense of advertising a new one.

If the Frakkers can keep people quite for just under a dozen years, all other tings being equal, it's probably more than enough time for their PR firms to sweep it away.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Oh, they will keep it up

after all, they have hired the same people who white-washed tobacco dangers for 40 years, so I am guessing that we have another 30 years of this.

Of course, by that time, it will be took late. But hey, they made a LOT of money in thee meantime, and that is what matters.

[kestrel91316]

9. Those kids can NOT be held to a contract that their parents signed once they hit 18.

This is Law 101.

[MsPithy]

21. However, the SCOTUS has such a pro-business agenda,

even Law 101 is in question. The Roberts court could find that because a corporation lives forever, their contracts with mere mortals must be passed from one generation to the next.

At this point, I believe the court will make up absolutely any reason to give corporations the advantage.

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. I don't think this has much to do with legality, it is a civil matter and, even if completely

unenforceable, it is an opening for an endless series of lawsuits.

Big companies sue people into bankruptcy hundreds of times every day. It's so common that it is rarely reported on anymore.

[IDemo]

3. I don't think so

Even if they agreed to the terms, which I highly doubt, minors cannot be held to the terms of a contract.

[libodem]

6. WTF?

[mick063]

7. If they were my children

They would receive full disclosure upon adulthood.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Unless I am reading this wrong

the point is not to keep the children in the dark about why they (or their parents) are sick, but simply to keep them quiet about it. What they don't want is little Johnny writing an essay for school called "How Fracking Gave Me Cancer".

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. Take the money

Hire a ghost writer to write a book on the case...

[grahamhgreen]

18. Take the money. Offshore it and don't let anyone know where (say 3 places). And write about it.

[Octafish]

11. Freedom from Speech costs a tad under a cool mill.

Cold cash for the Friendliest Fascism around.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. +1

[Marrah_G]

12. The children are to young to agree to that

And any agreement the parents make I don't believe would be legal once then are adults.

[chemenger]

14. Really means you wonder just what it is that they're hiding.

Range Resources: Drilling is just the beginning (of the end!!!)

[Champion Jack]

28. Bingo!

[blackspade]

15. I don't know how that could be legally binding after they become 18.

This is a horrific breach of their 1st amendment rights.

[WinkyDink]

22. How is it "a common restriction" to be forbidden to discuss a SUBJECT, not just the specific legal

agreement????

[1monster]

23. How can this be legal? A child under 18 cannot legally consent to a contract.

The parents, can, of course sign for the children; but once the children reach 18, the children are no longer bound by the contract.

[felix_numinous]

24. Frack should be made a cuss word

Like in Battlestar Gallactica. That will teach them to ban a word. Frack!!!

[Volaris]

25. I want to know how the FUCK it's legal in Penn. for a doctor to NOT be allowed to tell a patient

what the hell is making them sick, and WHY.
If I were someone's physician, and I knew what was in that shit, and knew how it was afecting my patients health, sure as hell they would know it, too, and the gas companies be dammned.

Yeah, we need to start building State-run, Not-For-Profit Energy and Utility companies, and just put these fuckers out of business.

[freshwest]

31. Like the AZ law prohibiting doctors from telling women they have a tubal pregnancy? Thank ALEC.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions

It’s called a “wrongful birth” bill and it’s all about preventing women from having an abortion, even if it kills them. The Arizona Senate passed a bill this week that gives doctors a free pass to not inform pregnant women of prenatal problems because such information could lead to an abortion.

In other words, doctors can intentionally keep critical health information from pregnant women and can’t be sued for it. According to the Arizona Capitol Times, “the bill’s sponsor is Republican Nancy Barto of Phoenix. She says allowing the medical malpractice lawsuits endorses the idea that if a child is born with a disability, someone is to blame.” So Republicans are banning lawsuits against doctors who keep information from pregnant women so as to prevent them from choosing to have an abortion.

This bill is actually more disturbing than the Republicans seem to realize. Giving doctors such a free pass risks the lives of both the expectant mother and the fetus she carries. Prenatal care isn’t just for discovering birth defects and disabilities. It is also for discovering life threatening issues such as an ectopic pregnancy which often requires an abortion to save the life of the mother. With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable anyway, but Republicans are allowing anti-abortion doctors to keep life threatening information from pregnant women all because they are obsessed with stopping any and all abortions. Women may not know they have a life threatening condition until they die on the emergency room table. And the doctor couldn’t be sued.

This is an egregious bill that will lead to higher mortality rates for infants and mothers. Doctors should be held accountable for not disclosing information learned from prenatal examinations. Pregnant women have the right to know if their future child is going to have a disability or if the pregnancy may require an induced abortion to save their lives. Any decision that is made as a result of the information is the mothers own. Doctors should not be allowed to make decisions for pregnant women as a way to prevent abortions. Women have the right to make their own health decisions and hiding critical information is irresponsible, unconscionable, and risks lives. In the end, Republicans are only putting more lives in jeopardy. They might as well call this the ‘let women die’ bill.

Read more:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/07/arizona-senate-passes-bill-allowing-doctors-to-not-inform-women-of-prenatal-issues-to-prevent-abortions/#ixzz2cTAwh2YT

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/03/08/arizona-senate-passes-bill-permitting-doctors-to-withhold-prenatal-information-from-women/

P. S. As far as this story goes, I strongly support turning all utitilities over to local control with government ownership. IOW, socialism. My electric company is the perfect example of that and should be nation wide.

[Volaris]

38. I don't call that socialism...

I call that We The People being able to compete in a TRULY Free and Open Market. If people want to support a for-profit business (that they can then invest in with the hope of turning a profit themselves), well, that's fine with me. But the idea that the market won't support or isn't allowed to include a competitor is itself the antithesis of "free-market".

It's the idea that the Government is allowed to COMPETE. And it's the reason the right screams so loud that the government is inept, because they know damn-well if your State or mine opened up a Public-Option alternative energy company and decided to start manufacturing at-or-below-cost Solar Panels, Exxon would be bankrupt in 12 months lol.

And yeah, WTF is happening with Arizona. I can only presume this trash was passed as law in order to reduce the number of abrotions resulting from dangerous pregnancies, so maybe next, Ob-Gyn's simply wont be allowed ot tell a woman she's pregnant AT ALL. You know, just to be SURE a woman can't make a "wrong" decision.

[freshwest]

39. Gag orders and socialim? Are you thinking of another post?

[Betsy Ross]

27. Well don't say Fracking, say FUCKING.

Seems an appropriate synonym in this case.

[Enrique]

29. so much secrecy these days n/t

[arcane1]

35. How can they even enforce that???

[Posteritatis]

36. The company'd be up on murder charges when the first judge to see that died laughing. (nt)

[Agony]

37. Texas Sharon has an update reporting that Range is backing down

http://www.texassharon.com/2013/08/01/range-resources-to-release-gagged-children/

"Today in a statement given to the Post-Gazette, we learn that Range may be issuing an affidavit releasing the gag on the Hallowich children."

The question I ask... Would they be backing down if this extortion had not become public...?

This common practice by the gasholes when they eff up peoples water IS extortion.

[Blue Owl]

40. The first rule of Frack Club

is never talk about Frack Club.

[rocktivity]

41. Duzy!!!

rocktivity

[liberal_at_heart]

42. They are thugs trying to intimidate those who don't know any better.

[Quantess]

44. Wow, terrible. (no text)

[derby378]

45. Range Resources? They have a history of using what they call "psy ops"

Observe:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45208498