Daily Notes 10.12.18

—-

—-

https://www.ksl.com/article/46405065/florida-authorities-say-11-now-dead-from-hurricane-michael

https://www.ksl.com/article/46405007/police-seize-thousands-of-cannabis-pens-cigars-in-i-80-traffic-stop

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=34317001

Ravell Call/Deseret News

Bingham Junction development celebrates removal from Superfund list

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue and Nkoyo Iyamba  |  Posted Apr 20th, 2015 @ 7:23pm


6PM: Bingham Junction development celebrates removal from Superfund list
MIDVALE — Once rife with contaminants like lead and arsenic and plagued by a toxic reputation that derailed neighboring home sales, a sprawling 446-acre site now supports a $300 million tax base and is being heralded as a national model for cleanup and site redevelopment.

The Midvale slag site, first named to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund list in 1991, was removed from the list earlier this month — a milestone celebrated in a ceremony Monday featuring a tour of the mixed-use development that occupies the land.

“This is a day of miracles,” Midvale Mayor JoAnn Seghini said.

Seghini recalled a time in 1986 when the area was dominated by contamination and the time clock of “to do’s” put completion of the cleanup 80 years into the future.

Instead, just three decades later, the site is teeming with robust economic activity, jumping from an appraised value of just $2,500 to more than $200 million.

“Midvale is an example of what a Superfund site can achieve and a national example of what a community can achieve,” said Shaun McGrath, the regional administrator for the EPA that covers Utah and several other Western states.

Now called Bingham Junction, the land once sported a smelter that operated from 1871 to 1958 and an ore processing mill that left behind 14 million cubic yards of contaminated tailings. More than 2,000 jobs are now part of the thriving commercial development that has earned the city the Environmental Achievement Award for Excellence in Site Reuse.

The cleanup was massive.

In 1984, studies revealed that groundwater and soils were contaminated with heavy metals that were a legacy from processing the ore that came out of Bingham Canyon.


Midvale is an example of what a Superfund site can achieve and a national example of what a community can achieve.

–Shaun McGrath, EPA


Ultimately, the tailings at the adjacent Sharon Steel site were capped and extensive remediation was carried out throughout the entire site, the heavy metals buried and held in place under layers of protective soils to prevent disturbance.

By 1999, the site became a Superfund redevelopment initiative as part of a pilot project for the EPA in the Western U.S. and was featured as a case study for the agency in 2011 and 2012 as an example for reuse of contaminated lands.

Fran Costanzi, who was the EPA’s initial Superfund project manager for the site, said the contrast today is startling: large mounds of slag and dilapidated buildings are just a memory, and shiny new buildings are sprouting in their place.

“It’s fabulous,” Costanzi said.

Dave Allison serves as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s community involvement coordinator, acting as a liaison between the community and the government as cleanup has progressed throughout the years.

Midvale’s slag site is unique in that it was so large and located in the middle of a metropolitan area experiencing rampant growth, he said.

Shaun McGrath regional administrator of the EPA, presents Midvale Mayor JoAnn Seghini an award after announcing that the Midvale slag superfund site was officially removed from the U.S. Superfund list at a ceremony Monday, April 20, 2015, at FLSmidth in Midvale. (Photo: Scott G Winterton, Deseret News)

“The site was going to be cleaned up, but it was the vision the partners had to develop this area that is remarkable,” Allison said. “To see it and then see what it has become, it’s incredible. It is just what is supposed to happen.”

Despite the celebration, some nearby residents think there might still be contamination in the area. Julie Hansen, who has lived in the area for over 40 years, is one of the skeptics.

“They had a playground � and they tore it down because they said it was contaminated,” Hansen said. “Those condos over there could be sitting on some contamination.”

Other longtime residents, like James and Julie Hall, are lukewarm about the improvements in the area.

“They’ve improved the area, in my opinion, but underneath the improvement the slag still exists,” James Hall said.

But Amanda Smith, with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, was quick to add reassurance to the new non-Superfund label.

“It’s far from a Band-Aid. The site is actually cleaned up � it’s actually safe to be here,” Smith said.

For more information on the cleanup of the Midvale slag, visit www2.epa.gov/region8/midvale-slag.

PHOTOS

 

MontanaGuy · 14 minutes ago
The problem is not regulation, it is that there are so many different agencies that attempt to regulate (State and Federal). One says turn left, the other says turn right and the third says stay where you are. Also, the rules are cryptic and obviously written by a legislator that does not understand how the business works and what is feasible. I recently attended WEFTEC, a water quality conference in New Orleans that occupied the entire conference center. If one were to walk all of the exhibition hall, you would have walked 10 miles. The point is that while there is a lot of money tied up in industry, there is just as much profit to be made in regulation. Only difference is that industry builds wealth, regulation leaches wealth.
1
massman · 15 minutes ago
This is good news, probably. However, with the current administrations attempts to weaken the EPA one must wonder if political interference has had a hand in these decisions before accepting this news as good news at face value. This sort of thing does have precedence. In a 2007 study (released in 2008) the Union of Concerned Scientist documented political interference at the EPA, and a lot of news articles have raised similar concerns with the current administration, starting with the naming of a long-time foe of the EPA as the EPA chief. He (Mr. Pruitt) later resigned under pressure from multiple investigations, many of them involve ethics. It was so bad that in April of 2018 Bloomberg published and article titled “A Guide to the Scott Pruitt Investigations” and found the need to update the article in July.

Andyjaggy · 4 minutes ago
Privatize the profits, socialize the costs. These companies make a killing on extraction, and then leave the public to foot the bill on the cleanup.

——–

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_in_Relation_to_Service

Act in Relation to Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Act in Relation to Service, which was passed on Feb 4, 1852 in the Utah Territory, made slavery legal in the territory. A similar law, Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners was passed on March 7, 1852, and specifically dealt with Indian slavery.[1]

Background[edit]

African slaves were first brought into Utah in 1847 by Mormon Pioneers. At the time, slavery was illegal in Mexico, but became de facto law, based on Mormon acceptance of slavery.[2] Several prominent Mormon leaders had slaves, including Charles C. RichAbraham O. Smoot and William H. Hooper.[3] Also, they had begun to acquire Indian slaves, through purchase or through wars. At the end of the Mexican-American War, Utah, became a part of the United States, and the issue of slavery in the new territories became a highly political subject. Finally, members of Congress passed the Compromise of 1850, which allowed the Territories of Utah and New Mexico to choose by popular sovereignty whether to make slavery legal in those territories. Still, no law was made on slavery. At the end of 1851, Don Pedro Leon Lujan was charged with trading with Indians without a license, including Indians slaves. The trial was in progress and the ambiguous status of slavery had become an issue in the trial.

Drafting of the act[edit]

On January 5, 1852, Brigham YoungTerritorial Governor of Utah, addressed the joint session of the Utah Territory legislature. He discussed the ongoing trial of Don Pedro Leon Lujan and the importance of explicitly indicating the true policy for slavery in Utah.[4]:108 He argued that owning slaves was a way to improve the condition of the Africans, because it would teach them how to live a useful life. He said it would give them a platform to build off of and allow them to build as far as the Curse of Hamwould allow them to progress. He argued that service was necessary and honorable, and important for all societies. However he urged moderation, not to treat Africans as beasts of the field, nor to elevate them to equality with the whites, which was against God’s will.[4]:109 He argued slavery was a good balance in building on the foundation of how God wanted the African race to progress, while observing the law of natural affection which would lead whites to favor other whites. He said that this was the principle of true liberty according to the designs of God.[4]:110

With these directions, the Utah legislature then drafted a bill entitled “An Act in Relation to African Slavery”. All of the legislature was Mormon and regarded Young as a prophet.

On January 23, 1852, Young followed up with another speech to the Joint Session of the Legislature advocating slavery. He first argued that they must support slavery on religious grounds, stating that “inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery”.[5]:26 He argued that the blacks had the Curse of Ham placed on them which made them servants of servants and that he was not authorized to remove it.[5]:27 He argued that blacks needed to serve masters because they are not capable of ruling themselves, and that when treated right, blacks were much better off as slaves than if they were free.[5]:28 He also suggested that the name of the act be changed it to “An Act in Relation to Manual Service” to emphasize that slaves should be treated better. It was later changed to just “An Act in Relation to Service”.[6]

Many scholars have hypothesized why Young supported slavery. John Smith suggested that with New Mexico leaning toward entering the Union as a free state, Young may have felt it would be easier to enter the Union as a slave state in order to preserve the balance of power in Congress. He also pointed out that several Mormons owned slaves, partially because the Mormons had actively proselyted in the southern United States prior to their arrival in Utah, including several prominent Mormons (including apostles Charles C. Rich and Abraham Smoot). He also said Young may have felt that white slave owners from the South would be more likely to convert to Mormonism and migrate to Utah if their slaves were treated as property.[3]

Passing of the act[edit]

An Act in Relation to Service was passed on Feb 4, 1852. The act had a few special provisions unique to slavery in Utah. Masters were required by law to correct and punish their slaves, which particularly worried Republicans in Congress.[7] Slaves brought into the Territory had to come “of their own free will and choice”; and they could not be sold or taken from the Territory against their will. Though a fixed period of servitude was not prescribed for Negroes, the law provided “that no contract shall bind the heirs of the servant … for a longer period than will satisfy the debt due his [master].” Several unique provisions were included which terminated the owner’s contract in the event that the master had sexual intercourse with a servant “of the African race,” neglected to feed, clothe, shelter, or otherwise abused the servant, or attempted to take him from the Territory against his will. Some schooling was also required for slaves between the ages of six and twenty.

Section Four of the statute prohibited sexual relations or miscegenation between whites and blacks. The section read in part, “if any white person shall be guilty of sexual intercourse with any of the African race, they shall be subject, on conviction thereof to a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars, nor less than five hundred, to the use of the Territory, and imprisonment, not exceeding three years.”

The day after the act passed, Brigham Young gave the explanation of the Curse of Cain for slavery. He also taught that blacks should have no part in the government, including the right to vote. (Blacks had previously been barred from voting.) He warned against interracial marriages and treating blacks as equals. He also declared following the passage of the statute, “I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term. It is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God decreed, to take a blessing and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain as servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children and their compassion should reach over them and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that human feeling necessary to be shown to mortal beings of the human species. Under these circumstances their blessings in life are greater in portion than those that have to provide the bread and dinner for them.”[5]:45

Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners[edit]

When Young called for an act on slavery, he referenced both African and Indian slavery. After the name of the bill changed from “An Act in Relation to African Slavery”, it lost all mention of race, except in the section on sexual conduct, and technically included Indian slavery. However, in the following month the legislature passed a similar law specific to Indian slavery, with increased educational requirements for Indian slaves over African slaves. The requirement for ownership was also considerable less, with Indian slaves only having to be in possession of white person. Utah is unique in that it had an active enslavement of both Africans and Indians.

Repeal[edit]

The slavery portion of the act was repealed on June 19, 1862, when Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories. The anti-miscegenation portion remained in effect until 1963.[citation needed]

See also[edit]

 

 

—-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Utah

History of slavery in Utah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article treats the topic of slavery as it occurred in the borders of what is now the state of Utah. Under Spanish and Mexican rule, Utah was a major source of illegal slave raids by MexicanUte and Navajo slave traders, particularly on Paiute tribes. When Mormon pioneers entered Utah, they introduced African slavery and provided a local market for Indian slavery. After the Mexican–American War, Utah became part of the United States and slavery was officially legalized in Utah Territory on February 4, 1852 with the passing of the Act in Relation to Service. It was repealed on June 19, 1862 when Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories.

Indian slavery[edit]

Slave raids were common along the Old Spanish Trail

From 1824–1848, Utah was part of Alta California Territory in Mexico. Mexican trading parties would often travel the Old Spanish Trail, which went through modern day Utah, and buy Indian slaves to sell in the neighboring territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico or other places in Alta California. MexicansUtes and Navajos would raid Paiute and sometimes Ute villages for slaves. Slavery had been made illegal in Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico in 1812 and in Alta California Territory in 1824, but lax enforcement and high profits kept it going.[1] Boys would sell for $100 and girls between $150 and $200. Indigenous girls could demand a higher price because they had a reputation for making the best house servants.[2] In addition, Mexican laws allowed for an aggressive debt bondage in the form of the peonage system.[3]

Shortly after, the Mormon Pioneers arrived in Salt Lake Valley, they began expanding into Indian territory, which often resulted in conflict. After expanding into Utah Valley, Brigham Young issued the extermination order against the Timpanogos, resulting in the Battle at Fort Utah, where many Timpanogos women and children were taken into slavery. Some were able to escape, but many died in slavery.[4] After expanding into Parowan, Mormons attacked a group of Indians, killing around 25 men and taking the women and children as slaves.[5]:274 News of the enslavement reached the US Government, who appointed Edward Cooper as Indian Agent in September 1850.[6] Edward Cooper made the issue of Indian slavery one of his first efforts.[7]

A statue of Chief Walkara who was a licensed slave trader in Utah.

At the encouragement of Mormon leaders, the Mormon pioneers started participating in the Indian slave trade.[8][9] In 1851, Apostle George A. Smith gave Chief Peteetneetand Walkara talking papers that certified “it is my desire that they should be treated as friends, and as they wish to Trade horses, Buckskins and Piede children, we hope them success and prosperity and good bargains.”[10] Brigham Young encouraged the saints to “buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could”.[11] (Lamanite is a Mormon term for Native Americans.)

However, the Mormons strongly opposed the New Mexican slave trade.[3] In November 1851, Don Pedro Leon Lujan, a New Mexican slave trader who had been operating in Utah with a New Mexico license, asked Young as the newly appointed governor of Utah for a license to trade with the Indians, including slaves. Young refused to given Lujan a license to conduct any trade with the Indians. On the way home to New Mexico, Lujan’s party was attacked by Ute Indians who stole his horses. Lujan retaliated by kidnapping some of their children to sell in New Mexico. He and his party were caught in Manti and charged with violating the Nonintercourse Act, which prohibited trading with the Indians without a valid license.[12] His property was seized and the children were sold into slavery to families in Manti. He contested, claiming it was hypocritical to not allow him to have slaves, but allow the Mormon families to have slaves.[13]

Many of Walker’s band were upset by the interruption with the Mexican slave trade. In one graphic incident, Ute Indian Chief Arrapine, a brother of Chief Walkara, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying these children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. In his book, Forty Years Among the IndiansDaniel Jones wrote, “[s]everal of us were present when he took one of these children by the heels and dashed its brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body towards us, telling us we had no hearts, or we would have bought it and saved its life.”[2]

A month after legalizing slavery with the Act in Relation to Service, Utah passed the Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners, which officially legalized Indian Slavery in Utah. The bill provided several protections for the Indian slaves, including a requirement to educate and clothe the Indians, and a limit of twenty years, which was greater than the New Mexican limit of ten years.

Mormons continued taking children from their families long after the slave traders left and even began to actively solicit children from Paiute parents. They also began selling Indian slaves to each other.[14]:56 By 1853, each of the hundred households in Parowan had one or more Paiute children.[14]:57 Indian slaves were used for both domestic and manual labor.[15]:240 In 1857, Representative Justin Smith Morrill estimated that there were 400 Indian slaves in Utah.[9] Richard Kitchen has identified at least 400 Indian slaves taken into Mormon homes, but estimates even more went unrecorded because of the high mortality rate of Indian slaves. Many of them tried to escape.[5]

African slavery[edit]

In 1847, the Mormon pioneers arrived with African slaves, which was the first time African slavery was in the area.[1] Mormons arrived in the middle of the Mexican–American War and ignored the Mexican ban on slavery. Instead, slavery was recognized by custom, naturally coming from the Mormon view on blacks.[16] Like many Christians of the day, Mormons believed in the Curse of Cain and Curse of Ham. Mormon leaders taught that God decreed that blacks should be “servants of servants” and that governments did not have the power to reverse God’s decree.[17] Three slaves arrived in the first company of pioneers, but more arrived in later companies.[18]

After Utah territory passed to American rule following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the issue of slavery in the newly acquired territories became a major issue, with the Whigs wanting to keep Mexico’s ban on slavery and the Democrats wanting to introduce slavery. During discussions, Utah lobbyist John Milton Bernhisel hid Utah slavery from members of Congress.[19] With the Compromise of 1850, Utah was granted the right to decide by popular sovereignty whether it wanted to allow slavery. By 1850, there were around 100 blacks, the majority of whom were slaves.[20] It is difficult to know the exact numbers, because Utah continued to hide slaves. The 1850 census of Utah territory was taken without the certification of Territorial Secretary Broughton Harris, who complained that the census was done in his absence and that it had several irregularities.[21] The census only reported 26 slaves, with a note that all of them were heading to California, making it seem like there would not be any slaves in Utah. It did not include any of the slaves held in Bountiful, Utah.[22]

On February 4, 1852, Utah passed the Act in Relation to Service, which officially legalized slavery in Utah territory. Like in other slave states, slaves tried to escape, were sold or donated,[23] wanted their freedoms and were often treated similar to the slaves in other states.[24] However, there were several unique characteristics to Utah slavery laws. The slave could be released for abuse or sexual relationships. Masters were required to clothe, educate and punish their slaves.[25]

When the Civil War broke out, Utah sided with the North and many slave owners returned to the South because they were thought they were more likely to keep their slaves.[26] On June 19, 1862 Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories.

See also[edit]

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Curse of Ham[edit]

The Curse of Cain was often conflated with the Curse of Ham. According to the Bible, Ham discovered his father Noah drunk and naked in his tent, but instead of honoring his father by covering his nakedness, he ran and told his brothers about it. Because of this, Noah cursed Ham’s son, Canaan by saying that he was to be “a servant of servants”. (Genesis 9:20-27) One interpretation of this passage states that Ham married a descendant of Cain, who was black, so that the descendants of Canaan were both marked with black skin and cursed to be servants of servants. While there is no indication in the Bible of Ham’s wife descending from Cain, this interpretation was used to justify slavery and it was particularly popular in America during the Atlantic slave trade.[26][27]

Modern scholars now believe that the Canaanites are of Semitic origin, and therefore unrelated to black Africans.

Latter-day Saints[edit]

Mormonism began during the height of Protestant acceptance of the curse of Cain doctrine in America, as well as the even more popular curse of Ham doctrine. Like many Americans,[26][27] Mormons of the 19th century commonly assumed that black Africans had Cain’s “mark” of black skin,[28] and Ham’s curse to be servants of servants.[29] While Joseph Smith indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831,[30] however, the reference is not to the “curse or mark of Cain” as in the Pearl of Great Price, it is attributed to an act of genocide upon “the people of Shum” and includes the statement that after this act the descendent of Cain were shunned: “And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” (Moses 7:22)

As related by Abraham O. Smoot after his death, Apostle David W. Patten said he encountered a black man in Paris, Tennessee, who said that he was Cain. The account states that Cain had earnestly sought death but was denied it, and that his mission was to destroy the souls of men. [31][32]:85 The recollection of Patten’s story is quoted in Apostle Spencer W. Kimball‘s The Miracle of Forgiveness.

The Old Testament student manual, which is published by the Church and is the manual currently used to teach the Old Testament in LDS Institutes, teaches that Ham’s wife was a descendant of Cain:

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.[33]

Priesthood ban[edit]

There is evidence that Joseph Smith did not consider the ban on black men to the priesthood to be relevant in modern times, since he himself (and other church leaders close to him) ordained black men into it,[34]notably Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.

After the death of Joseph SmithThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith’s church. Brigham Young (the second President of the Church) accepted the idea that people of African ancestry were generally under the curse of Cain, and in 1852, he stated that people of black African descent were not eligible to hold the church’s priesthood.[35] Young taught that in the war in heaven, both Cain and Abel were leaders. The spirits of black people fought under Cain and were assigned to be Cain’s descendant. Those that fought under Abel were assigned to be Abel’s descendants. Cain hoped that by killing his brother, the spirits that were under him would have an advantage over the spirits under Abel. However, God cursed Cain and his descendants to not have the priesthood until all of Abel’s descendants had the priesthood. The spirits of black people understood this and stood with Cain and accepted the punishment.[36][37] The ban on the priesthood affected black members differently than it did in other churches because the LDS Church has a lay priesthood in which virtually all worthy male members become priesthood holders.

Several of his successors defended it as being a result of the curse of Cain, though some disagreed. Sterling M. McMurrin reported that, in 1954, church president David O. McKay said: “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”[38]

In 1978, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball reported receiving a revelation from God allowing all worthy male members of the church to receive the priesthood without regard to race or color.[39][40] The news was greeted with joy and relief by Mormons. Although the church had previously been criticized for its policy during the civil rights movement, the change seems to have been prompted by problems facing mixed-race converts in Brazil.[41]

There has neither been an official or an explicit church repudiation of its policy, nor has there been an admission that it was a mistake. Many black church members think that giving an apology would be a “detriment” to church work and a catalyst for further racial misunderstanding. African-American church member Bryan E. Powell says: “There is no pleasure in old news, and this news is old.” Gladys Newkirk agrees, stating: “I’ve never experienced any problems in this church. I don’t need an apology …. We’re the result of an apology.”[42] Many Black Mormons say that they are willing to look beyond the former teachings and cleave to the doctrines of the church, in part because of its powerful, detailed teachings on life after death.[43]

The LDS Church has issued an official statement about past practices and theories regarding skin color, stating: “[t]oday, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, … Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”[44]

Civil rights[edit]

When Utah was considering slavery, Brigham Young told the Utah Territorial Legislature that the curse of Cain required slavery. He argued that until all of the descendants of Abel have access to the priesthood, all of the descendants of Cain should remain in servitude.[45]:28 He argued that because they did not have the right to govern the affairs of the Church due to the priesthood ban, they also shouldn’t have the right to govern the affairs of the state, including the right to vote.[45]:47 He warned that if they made the children of Cain equal to them, they would be cursed.[45]:48 He also argued that if someone married a descendant of Cain, that they would also have the same curse.[45]:48

 

 

 

 

https://www.ksl.com/article/46405045/family-searches-for-graves-of-slave-ancestors-in-northern-utah

KSL TV

Family searches for graves of slave ancestors in northern Utah

By Mike Anderson, KSL TV | Posted – Oct 11th, 2018 @ 9:10pm


2 photos
19

6PM: Family searches for graves of slave ancestors in northern Utah
Mike Anderson, KSL TV
WELLSVILLE, Cache County — The descendants of some Utah pioneers who were brought to the state as slaves honored their ancestors by finding and marking their graves Thursday in Cache County.

On the southeast corner of the Wellsville City Cemetery is a patch of grass that looks mostly empty. It’s where Judee Williams and her family believe some of their slave ancestors were buried.

“We know that they were buried in a segregated part of the cemetery,” Williams said. “These poor babies. They’ve laid there without their names for so long. We’re going to give them their name.”

Williams said her great, great grandfather, Nathan Bankhead, helped settle the town but eventually left for California after being freed. He did, however, have three children who died young, as well as a fellow slave, Louis Bankhead. Williams believed all four were buried near each other.

Wellsville City put a small monument in the area in May 2017. However, Williams felt it was important to find the actual graves and put down something more specific.

“This has haunted me for a year,” Williams said. “I just haven’t been able to let it go.”

Not knowing what she would find, she came to Wellsville from her home in Northern California, and hired an underground radar company to do a search of the area. Williams’ cousin, Marsha Boyd, brought her family up from Salt Lake City for the event.

“It would be nice to be able to come up here and say, ‘Yeah, this is where we started, this is where we were,’” Boyd said. “I have been told most of my life that no, we didn’t come as slaves — that we were free people — and we weren’t. We came as slaves, and the history needs to be taught right.”

Judee Williams (left) consults with a radar technician from Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, inc. on Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018. (Photo: KSL TV)

After several passes from the lawnmower-shaped radar machine, a technician was able to locate four graves close together; one large, and three small.

“I feel good. I think we did it,” Williams said, starting to tear up.

“I feel like I have found something that I never knew,” Boyd later added. “Something that was missing in my life, and I’m really happy about that.”

The family’s next step was to decide on markers for the graves, something they hope to have in place in time for their family reunion next Pioneer Day in 2019.

“This has been a long journey,” Williams said. “(It’s) been over a year that I’ve been trying to find our babies, and I’m so glad we did.”

—-

 

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=34317001

Ravell Call/Deseret News

Bingham Junction development celebrates removal from Superfund list

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue and Nkoyo Iyamba  |  Posted Apr 20th, 2015 @ 7:23pm


17 photos
7

6PM: Bingham Junction development celebrates removal from Superfund list
MIDVALE — Once rife with contaminants like lead and arsenic and plagued by a toxic reputation that derailed neighboring home sales, a sprawling 446-acre site now supports a $300 million tax base and is being heralded as a national model for cleanup and site redevelopment.

The Midvale slag site, first named to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund list in 1991, was removed from the list earlier this month — a milestone celebrated in a ceremony Monday featuring a tour of the mixed-use development that occupies the land.

“This is a day of miracles,” Midvale Mayor JoAnn Seghini said.

Seghini recalled a time in 1986 when the area was dominated by contamination and the time clock of “to do’s” put completion of the cleanup 80 years into the future.

Instead, just three decades later, the site is teeming with robust economic activity, jumping from an appraised value of just $2,500 to more than $200 million.

“Midvale is an example of what a Superfund site can achieve and a national example of what a community can achieve,” said Shaun McGrath, the regional administrator for the EPA that covers Utah and several other Western states.

Now called Bingham Junction, the land once sported a smelter that operated from 1871 to 1958 and an ore processing mill that left behind 14 million cubic yards of contaminated tailings. More than 2,000 jobs are now part of the thriving commercial development that has earned the city the Environmental Achievement Award for Excellence in Site Reuse.

The cleanup was massive.

In 1984, studies revealed that groundwater and soils were contaminated with heavy metals that were a legacy from processing the ore that came out of Bingham Canyon.


Midvale is an example of what a Superfund site can achieve and a national example of what a community can achieve.

–Shaun McGrath, EPA


Ultimately, the tailings at the adjacent Sharon Steel site were capped and extensive remediation was carried out throughout the entire site, the heavy metals buried and held in place under layers of protective soils to prevent disturbance.

By 1999, the site became a Superfund redevelopment initiative as part of a pilot project for the EPA in the Western U.S. and was featured as a case study for the agency in 2011 and 2012 as an example for reuse of contaminated lands.

Fran Costanzi, who was the EPA’s initial Superfund project manager for the site, said the contrast today is startling: large mounds of slag and dilapidated buildings are just a memory, and shiny new buildings are sprouting in their place.

“It’s fabulous,” Costanzi said.

Dave Allison serves as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s community involvement coordinator, acting as a liaison between the community and the government as cleanup has progressed throughout the years.

Midvale’s slag site is unique in that it was so large and located in the middle of a metropolitan area experiencing rampant growth, he said.

Shaun McGrath regional administrator of the EPA, presents Midvale Mayor JoAnn Seghini an award after announcing that the Midvale slag superfund site was officially removed from the U.S. Superfund list at a ceremony Monday, April 20, 2015, at FLSmidth in Midvale. (Photo: Scott G Winterton, Deseret News)

“The site was going to be cleaned up, but it was the vision the partners had to develop this area that is remarkable,” Allison said. “To see it and then see what it has become, it’s incredible. It is just what is supposed to happen.”

Despite the celebration, some nearby residents think there might still be contamination in the area. Julie Hansen, who has lived in the area for over 40 years, is one of the skeptics.

“They had a playground � and they tore it down because they said it was contaminated,” Hansen said. “Those condos over there could be sitting on some contamination.”

Other longtime residents, like James and Julie Hall, are lukewarm about the improvements in the area.

“They’ve improved the area, in my opinion, but underneath the improvement the slag still exists,” James Hall said.

But Amanda Smith, with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, was quick to add reassurance to the new non-Superfund label.

“It’s far from a Band-Aid. The site is actually cleaned up � it’s actually safe to be here,” Smith said.

For more information on the cleanup of the Midvale slag, visit www2.epa.gov/region8/midvale-slag.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46404812/sale-on-for-banksy-painting-that-self-destructed-at-auction

https://www.ksl.com/article/46404965/man-once-charged-with-child-sex-abuse-sues-roosevelt-for-75-million

Alex Staroseltsev, Shutterstock

Man once charged with child sex abuse sues Roosevelt for $7.5 million

By Pat Reavy, KSL | Updated – Oct 11th, 2018 @ 6:21pm | Posted – Oct 11th, 2018 @ 4:46pm

SALT LAKE CITY — A man once charged with child sex abuse, only to have his case thrown out due to faulty evidence, is now suing Roosevelt City and its police department for $7.5 million.

Jerahmia Hardman, 30, of Roosevelt, filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in late September against Roosevelt City, the police department, and specifically officer Pete Butcher and detective Tracy Bird.

In 2014, Hardman was accused of sexually abusing a young girl. He was taken to the Roosevelt Police Department to be “interrogated” by Butcher and Bird, according to the lawsuit.

“The entire interrogation was riddled with lies and falsehoods about the allegations and the evidence that had already been collected. The lies and manipulation were intended to get Mr. Hardman to admit guilt,” the lawsuit states.

Hardman was later charged in Uintah County’s 8th District Court with aggravated sexual abuse of a child.

But it wasn’t until nearly two years later during court proceedings that police disclosed significant portions of the video-recorded interview with Hardman were missing, the lawsuit states.

“There was no plausible explanation for the missing portion of the video and the officers did not disclose to the court or the prosecutor that there were significant portions of the video missing until a motion was filed and they were compelled to do so. The missing portions of the video would have contained exculpatory evidence. The missing portion of the video would have shown officers manipulating the defendant’s statements into what they claimed to be an admission,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit further contends the missing portions of video include the officers telling Hardman what to write in his confession and even telling him how certain words are spelled, the suit states. Attorneys for Hardman believe “the officers destroyed that portion of the video because it contained exculpatory evidence,” the lawsuit states.

Hardman, a friend of Hardman, and Hardman’s mother later met with Butcher for a recorded interview. During that interview, the mother stated she was skeptical the written admission came from her son.

In court, Hardman’s mother testified that her son cannot read or write beyond a rudimentary level, according to court documents, and he would not have been able to write some of the words contained in his purported admission on his own.

That interview with the friend and mother was never presented to the court, according to the lawsuit.

“By the time the interview was discovered, something had happened to the recording and it no longer existed,” the lawsuit states.

Related story:

In September of 2017, 8th District Judge Edwin Peterson wrote a lengthy ruling dismissing the case against Hardman. In his decision, the judge noted that not only was a long portion of the video missing, but possibly the most crucial part of interview.

“The fact that the purported written confession was not part of the recording is highly suspect, particularly in light of the evidence that the defendant cannot read or write at a competent level,” wrote Peterson, who further went on to say that the officers’ failure to inform the court in a timely manner that the alleged recorded confession was lost “is extraordinarily troubling.”

Hardman’s prolonged court proceedings lasted three years before the charges were eventually dismissed. During that time, he lost his job, was not allowed to have contact with the alleged victim for two years, and garnered heavy legal bills, according to the lawsuit.

Roosevelt city leaders have hired attorney Heather White to represent them in the case. In a prepared statement, White said the city has yet to be formally served with the complaint, but she was aware of the underlying facts. She said the missing video confession is not really missing.

“We have the video and always have. The end of the recording is garbled and then cuts out. Earlier downloads of the recording ended before the confession, which is presumably what the trial judge had when he issued his ruling in the criminal case. However, we were able to restore several minutes of the recording, in which Mr. Hardman confesses to touching his (victim).”

This isn’t the first time Butcher has been accused of falsifying evidence.

In 2016, Joshua Shumway filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against Butcher and the city. Shumway, a nurse, was charged with raping and threatening to kill a patient in 2013. But in 2015, the charges against Shumway were dismissed. While dismissing the case, the judge blasted Butcher in his 33-page ruling for the detective’s “superficial and insufficient” investigation.

In his lawsuit, Shumway said, “Butcher misled, fabricated and omitted information in order to obtain an arrest warrant directed to Josh Shumway.

“Officer Butcher’s probable cause affidavit, and his later testimony concerning it, contained false statements, exaggerations, and outright fabrications, and further omitted facts that were necessary to prevent statements contained therein from being misleading,” he continued.

The lawsuit was settled in August 2016. Butcher has since retired from the Roosevelt Police Department.

—-

—-

—-

—-

—-

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s