Bradley Mining’s Legacy is Water Polluted by Toxic Mercury

Table of Contents (for reference only)

• Introduction
• Corporate Intent Exposed
• The Corporations Get Away With It
• The Cost of Doing Business
• Systemic Failures
• This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
• The PR Playbook of Damage Control
• Profits Over People
• The Human Toll on Workers and Communities
• Global Trends in Corporate Accountability
• Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

---

Introduction

They called it the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site—a place whose very name conjures images of toxic mercury, corporate pollution, and vulnerable communities left to bear the cost of environmental devastation. The most damning evidence from the provided legal source emerges from the very first pages: the Bradley Mining Company and related entities allegedly abandoned hazardous substances on parcels of tribal land, leaving the region’s residents to grapple with a severe environmental burden. Despite a 2012 Consent Decree meant to clean up the site and compensate the affected Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians, a tangled web of corporate maneuvers and trust agreements now threatens to sabotage the promised remediation. The original settlement, designed to hold the corporate defendants accountable and provide funds for restoration, is mired in financial shortfalls and the near-total disappearance of Bradley Mining Company (and the Bradley Trust)—with the trust meant to oversee toxic land underfunded and functionally paralyzed.

According to the complaint and subsequent filings, the properties in question were supposed to transfer into a Redevelopment Trust that would finance environmental response actions and ultimately return safe, cleaned parcels of land to the Elem Indian Colony. Yet the legal source reveals that the Redevelopment Trust “does not have sufficient funds to carry out the duties required by Section VIII of the Consent Decree or the Trust Agreement.” This single statement underscores a colossal failure of corporate accountability. By leaving the trust practically bankrupt, the communities who live on or near the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Site—particularly the Elem Tribe—are arguably left in limbo, waiting for a cleanup and property transfer that, more than a decade later, remains unfinished.

Such facts, pulled directly from the First Modification to the Consent Decree, epitomize a broader crisis of corporate responsibility. Despite being legally bound to remedy the contamination they allegedly created, Bradley Mining’s corporate existence appears to have evaporated: “To [defense counsel’s] knowledge, the Bradley Mining Company and the Worthen Bradley Family Trust no longer exist.” Meanwhile, neoliberal capitalism’s deregulation and profit-driven frameworks enable this type of evasion. The superfund site remains a toxic testament to how easily corporations can walk away from their mess, while government entities and vulnerable populations are forced to pick up the pieces.

In the sections that follow, we will delve deeply into the official allegations from the legal source to expose the underlying misconduct, highlight the structural failings that allowed it to persist, and connect this single case of alleged corporate irresponsibility to a pattern of systemic exploitation under late-stage capitalism. By examining the trust’s formation and subsequent collapse, we see a microcosm of how deregulation, regulatory capture, and a relentless push for profit overshadow genuine corporate social responsibility and public welfare. We will end by considering possible reforms, so that communities like the Elem Indian Colony do not continue to suffer from dangerous, unresolved contamination while large corporations simply dissolve and evade accountability.

---

Corporate Intent Exposed

From the vantage point of the 2012 Consent Decree, the facts laid bare in the current legal filings paint a harsh picture of alleged corporate misconduct. The Bradley Mining Company, along with representatives of the Worthen Bradley Family Trust, initially entered into an agreement with the United States of America and the Elem Indian Colony to address liability arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Specifically, the defendants were supposed to:

1. Convey parcels of land (the “Covered Parcels”) to a Redevelopment Trust that would function for the benefit of the government’s cleanup efforts and for the Elem Tribe’s eventual reacquisition of tribal land.
2. Provide financial resources—namely from insurance claims, annual payments, and real estate proceeds—that would facilitate the cleanup of the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site, or at least contribute to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for the same purpose.
3. Transfer certain parcels (Parcels 33, 39, 57, 58, and 81) to a trust, which would eventually revert to the Elem Indian Colony for their use after these parcels were deemed safe.

At face value, these measures might sound like the blueprint for corporate social responsibility. Instead, allegations from the newly filed First Modification reveal a broken system. According to the text, the trust established in 2012—mandated to manage, maintain, and eventually convey these contaminated parcels—is effectively starved of funds. Despite the original intention that the Redevelopment Trust would operate via ten percent of net sales proceeds (with ninety percent to go to the EPA for site cleanup), the complaint notes that “the Redevelopment Trust does not have sufficient funds to carry out the duties” mandated by the decree.

This shortfall represents more than mere oversight or accounting error. In the eyes of those impacted, it hints at deeper corporate intent: shift assets and liabilities around, finalize a symbolic settlement, then let the trust languish in a cashless purgatory. The alleged wrongdoing is not limited to just non-payment; it extends to the fundamental refusal or inability of Bradley Mining Company and the Bradley Trust to ensure that the new Redevelopment Trust could function. While the complaint stops short of accusing the company of deliberately orchestrating the trust’s poverty, the effect is the same. Meanwhile, “Defendants subsequently transferred all of their respective interest in the Covered Parcels to the Redevelopment Trust”—yet the vital financial pipeline to maintain these parcels and facilitate their cleanup has reportedly run dry.

This record underscores a powerful theme in the legal source: The corporate entity, faced with the expensive reality of environmental liabilities, appears to have left behind a shell trust. The community, the environment, and the government are now scrambling for solutions. The original complaint placed the responsibility for contamination squarely at the feet of Bradley Mining Company. But the First Modification indicates that those responsible either no longer exist or can no longer be compelled to pay their share. In an era of neoliberal capitalism, these revelations raise larger questions: Are corporations structuring deals to satisfy the minimal legal requirements while providing little actual remedy for those harmed?

---

The Corporations Get Away With It

One of the more revealing statements in the legal source is that the government tried to contact counsel for Bradley Mining, only to learn that “the Bradley Mining Company and the Worthen Bradley Family Trust no longer exist.” This line underscores the precariousness of corporate accountability: an entity that apparently profited from large-scale mining activities can, when faced with expensive cleanup responsibilities, simply vanish from the legal landscape.

How is this disappearance possible? The case highlights a loophole under which corporations fold, restructure, or shift liabilities to trusts or subsidiaries, and then leave those instruments underfunded or otherwise incapable of meeting obligations. Although the text does not detail the original corporate structure of Bradley Mining, the pattern is familiar in communities nationwide grappling with legacy pollution—from defunct lead smelters in the Midwest to shuttered chemical plants along the Gulf Coast. Corporate dissolution is a standard move in evasion tactics: The liabilities remain, but the responsible entity is little more than a name in old incorporation papers.

The government’s complaint further states that the Redevelopment Trust was supposed to act as an intermediary, with the express purpose of holding, maintaining, and ultimately conveying the properties to the Elem Tribe or the government. Yet “the Redevelopment Trust does not have sufficient funds” to do so—direct evidence that the corporate side either failed to fund it or intentionally starved it of resources. It is no wonder that the documents also reveal a need to modify the Consent Decree to allow the trust to keep up to ninety percent (instead of ten percent) of net sales proceeds from certain parcels, just to remain viable for the tasks at hand.

This scenario might look like a dry legal technicality, but for local communities and the environment, it is a potential death sentence: remediation is delayed, the property remains contaminated, and the community’s ability to reclaim their ancestral lands is obstructed. Meanwhile, from a profit-maximization standpoint, letting an entity “die” is an age-old strategy to shield corporate assets. Regulatory frameworks in the United States, shaped by decades of deregulation and regulatory capture, too often allow these moves with minimal or no penalty. As a result, the real costs—health problems, environmental damage, lost heritage—are offloaded onto taxpayers, under-resourced tribes, and public agencies left to clean up the mess.

---

The Cost of Doing Business

While it is tempting to frame the Bradley Mining saga as an anomaly, the legal source suggests something more systemic: The original Consent Decree from 2012 required Bradley Mining to fund and facilitate the trust arrangement. But, as the First Modification clarifies, “the Redevelopment Trust does not have sufficient funds to carry out the duties.” The cost of the actual cleanup—potentially millions of dollars for mercury remediation—far outweighs any ephemeral fines or partial payments that might have been extracted from the company years ago.

From an economic fallout perspective, what the community is left with is a classic example of “The Cost of Doing Business” in a neoliberal environment. The corporate ledger often reduces social and environmental harm to a line item, overshadowed by the pursuit of shareholder returns. Once that ledger is balanced in favor of dissolution, the liabilities can effectively be transferred to the public.

The legal document spells out how the trust was supposed to work:

1. Bradley Mining would transfer land and a portion of net sales/lease proceeds to the trust.
2. The Redevelopment Trust would keep a fraction (originally ten percent) of those proceeds to maintain the parcels and ensure compliance with environmental responsibilities.
3. Ninety percent of the proceeds would go to the EPA’s special account for response actions at the Sulphur Bank Site, or be transferred to the national Hazardous Substance Superfund.

But the allegations show that the revenue stream for the trust was inadequate. According to the modification, the trust’s cut will now jump to ninety percent. This is not a sign of generosity; it is a desperation measure to keep the trust afloat. The local economy, already plagued by the presence of a superfund site, is forced into a legal shell game where the final “cost of doing business” for the polluter is minimal—if it even exists at all. The U.S. government, or the tribe, or any potential trustee left holding the bag must scramble to find ways to remediate contamination that endangers local public health and the environment.

This precarious financial arrangement also highlights why many corporations weigh the probability of enforcement against the cost of compliance. If the cost of legal wrangling, settlement, or partial cleanup is less than the profits gleaned from a polluting endeavor, that becomes the rational path under the logic of for-profit capitalism. Meanwhile, communities—especially vulnerable tribal populations—see their resources and land compromised for generations.

---

Systemic Failures

No single settlement or consent decree arises in a vacuum. The story told by the First Modification to the Consent Decree is also the story of regulatory capture, deregulation, and the labyrinthine legal framework that shapes corporate accountability in the United States. The text references CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.)—a landmark environmental law designed to force polluters to pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Yet in practice, we see how corporate dissolution, minimal enforcement resources, and complicated trust arrangements can undermine even powerful statutes like CERCLA.

Key systemic failures that jump out from the legal source include:

1. Deregulation and Weak Enforcement: While CERCLA was intended to hold polluters accountable, the necessity for the government to chase after companies long gone or trust instruments underfunded points to an enforcement gap. If a polluter can vanish, reorganize, or declare bankruptcy, the burden shifts back to taxpayers or, in this case, tribal communities.
2. Regulatory Capture: Though the document does not explicitly reference lobbying or undue influence, the broader pattern of leniency or insufficient oversight reveals how corporate interests often shape policy and enforcement priorities. It would not be the first time that a resource extraction industry used political clout to reduce oversight.
3. Trust Structure Vulnerabilities: The modification underscores how the Redevelopment Trust’s existence was originally heralded as a solution, only for it to be starved of the very funds it needed. The idea of creating specialized trusts for site remediation is not new, but this case shows how easily it can fail when the corporate polluter disappears and leaves the trust under-resourced.
4. Public Harm Under Neoliberal Capitalism: For decades, laissez-faire economic policies have championed minimal state intervention. The result? Insufficient government resources to enforce compliance, a legal environment that privileges corporate rights, and an uphill battle for historically marginalized groups—like the Elem Indian Colony—seeking redress.

All these failures culminate in an outcome that the legal source hints at again and again: the contamination remains, the community still waits, and the nominal “responsible parties” can no longer be reached. While the First Modification attempts to rectify the trust’s funding mechanism, it is a belated measure that may or may not suffice to address the underlying contamination or deliver justice to the people impacted.

---

This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

The case of Bradley Mining is hardly an isolated incident. The pattern of exploitation—extractive industries leaving behind contaminated landscapes—is repeated across the country and the globe. This is not happenstance but a feature of the way modern capitalism often operates. When we read in the legal filing that “counsel for the Defendants represents that Frederick Bradley is deceased and, to his knowledge, the Bradley Mining Company and the Worthen Bradley Family Trust no longer exist,” we see how ephemeral these corporate and familial structures can be. Meanwhile, the toxic legacy they leave remains real, tangible, and extremely costly to remediate.

In the context of neoliberal capitalism, wealth disparity grows when powerful corporate entities extract resources without fully paying for the resulting harm. The same wealth that financed the mining operation may have been disbursed as profits, dividends, or legacy holdings, while the costs of addressing corporate pollution remain with the public sector and affected communities. This dynamic reveals corporate greed at a structural level: if a corporation is incentivized to make short-term gains without regard to long-term community impacts, it will do so unless robust regulations and fearless enforcement stand in its way.

Such systemic corruption thrives on:

• Complex Legal Structures: By partitioning liabilities into trusts, separate corporate entities, or partnerships, large enterprises can isolate risk and walk away from environmental responsibilities.
• Regulatory Reluctance: Agencies constrained by budgets or influenced by big-business lobbying often lack the will or power to enforce stronger penalties.
• Societal Apathy or Distraction: Amid competing headlines and crises, many cases of corporate environmental harm fly under the radar. Only the communities directly afflicted—like the Elem Tribe in this instance—continue to feel the acute effects day after day.

Where some see an unfortunate accident of the system, others argue that it is intentionally designed. By prioritizing shareholder profits and enabling corporate forms that easily dissolve, the system, as it stands, perpetuates wealth disparity and pollution. The voices in legal documents, from the tribe’s attorneys to the Department of Justice, highlight how deeply entrenched and challenging it is to pursue real accountability once the corporate parties have receded into the background.

---

The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When corporations do face legal consequences, there is a predictable public relations playbook they often employ. Though the Bradley Mining litigation documents do not detail the corporation’s own PR campaigns—indeed, the company and its trust are largely defunct—they do outline typical strategies used in such scenarios:

1. Denial and Minimization: Early in environmental controversies, corporations frequently deny the severity of contamination, question the science, or minimize the potential harm.
2. Greenwashing: Once forced to address the issue, businesses sometimes emphasize small environmental initiatives to obscure the overarching damage.
3. Legal Settlements Framed as Generous: Signing a Consent Decree or establishing a trust can be pitched to the public as a sign of corporate social responsibility—conveniently omitting that the settlement was compelled by law, or that the trust might be drastically underfunded.
4. Silence and Dissolution: If legal or public scrutiny continues, dissolving the responsible entity is a final step. Once the scrutiny lifts, the corporation may reemerge under a new name or simply vanish.

The original 2012 Consent Decree may have been touted as a “solution” to the contamination at the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Site, showcasing the company’s nominal willingness to “make things right.” Yet, as the new legal filing reveals, a settlement on paper does not guarantee real-world results. Greenwashing can take many forms, from small philanthropic gestures to quiet claims of compliance. Once the media cycle moves on, the actual money needed to clean up the site and restore tribal lands may never materialize.

The hope is that the new modifications—particularly transferring direct responsibility to the U.S. government for holding these parcels “in trust for the benefit of the Elem Tribe”—bypass the corporate shell. But the shadow of corporate spin remains: If or when future mining or resource extraction companies approach similarly contaminated sites, they might again stage a public relations campaign that “assures” the public they’ll do what’s right. Indeed, absent deeper reforms, little stops a new wave of corporate players from repeating the same storyline.

---

Profits Over People

The fundamental tension embedded in the First Modification to the Consent Decree is a story of profits over people. Mercury, the primary contaminant at the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site, is infamously dangerous—particularly for communities that fish, farm, or otherwise rely on local natural resources. By continuing operations without ensuring a thorough remediation plan and robust financial guarantees, Bradley Mining Company (and the now-inactive Bradley Trust) demonstrated the all-too-common pattern of externalizing risk.

According to the legal source, “the Defendants subsequently transferred all of their respective interest in the Covered Parcels to the Redevelopment Trust.” On its face, that transfer might seem like an acceptable step. But the newly revealed allegations that the trust “does not have sufficient funds to carry out the duties” speaks volumes about the real priority: the arrangement effectively shelters the companies (or their principals) from ongoing cleanup expenses, while leaving the trust, local communities, and federal agencies burdened by the residual costs. In a system that valorizes maximizing shareholder wealth, ensuring that community health is fully protected does not always rank high in boardroom discussions—especially once the extraction of resources ends.

In the short term, a company’s bottom line might look rosy, bolstered by the limited outlay for cleanup. In the long run, it is the people who depend on that land and water who pay the real price, often in the form of persistent pollution and related health problems. The trust arrangement in question was a belated attempt to rectify this imbalance, but the official record underscores how easily such attempts can be circumvented or undermined by inadequate funding and the disintegration of corporate defendants.

---

The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

While the legal text does not contain extensive personal stories or affidavits from the workers themselves, it does specify that the Elem Indian Colony was directly impacted by these contaminated parcels. The documents explain that the entire settlement aimed to “transfer Parcels 33, 39, 57, 58, and 81 to the United States to be held in trust for the benefit of the Elem Tribe” (or another trust or entity identified by the Tribe). The very mention of a superfund site on or near tribal land is a testament to public health risks and the potential for lasting socioeconomic harm.

Communities like the Elem Colony have historically suffered from wealth disparity, often exacerbated by corporate exploitation of the land and resources. Mercury contamination, in particular, can devastate traditional fishing, hunting, and foraging practices that are part of many tribal cultures. It can affect water quality, degrade soil, and harm wildlife populations. For tribal members, these are not just environmental issues—they are threats to cultural heritage, communal identity, and physical well-being.

Moreover, from an economic standpoint, the promised land transfers and potential development opportunities are now in limbo. If the trust cannot properly maintain or remediate these parcels, how can the Tribe effectively use them for housing, business, or cultural practices? The complaint even spells out the problem of the “Excised Lands,” areas still containing hazardous waste. Underfunding can lead to indefinite delay, leaving entire communities grappling with uncertainty.

In a broader sense, the workers who once labored at the Sulphur Bank Mine—if any remain in the area—may also bear the brunt of compromised health from years of exposure. While the legal document does not directly provide testimonies from these workers, case after case across the country reveals how employees at contaminated sites face higher rates of chronic illness. The question lingers: if the corporate structures that once employed them have folded, who remains to pay for medical bills or long-term care?

---

Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

The scenario unfolding in Lake County, California, mirrors a global crisis of environmental and social injustice. Around the world, extractive industries—be they mining, oil and gas, or large-scale agriculture—often leave behind contaminated land and marginalized communities without recourse. Legal systems in many countries lack even the basic enforcement provisions of CERCLA, let alone specialized trusts. This further underscores the necessity for robust corporate accountability mechanisms on an international scale.

1. Deregulation: As with the U.S., many jurisdictions loosen corporate rules to attract investment, fueling a race to the bottom in environmental and labor standards.
2. Regulatory Capture: Global corporations wield significant influence in shaping laws. Local regulators, underfunded or politically pressured, might fail to enforce the rules.
3. Inadequate Funding for Remediation: Even when regulations exist, if there is no guaranteed financial assurance mechanism—such as performance bonds or trust funds—polluters can fold and leave the public with the cleanup bill.

What the Bradley Mining case shows, in microcosm, is how easily even a “mature” legal framework like the United States can fail to prevent or remediate corporate pollution. In countries with fewer safeguards, the outcome can be catastrophic: entire communities uprooted, water supplies poisoned, and local economies shattered. Real and lasting corporate accountability must address the reality that, under global neoliberal capitalism, the top priority remains maximizing returns. The question is whether governments and citizens can enforce more stringent rules to ensure that environment and community well-being take precedence over short-term profit.

---

Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

While the First Modification to the Consent Decree is designed to remedy immediate funding woes—by allowing the Redevelopment Trust to keep more of any sales or lease proceeds—it does not solve the fundamental crisis of a dissolved corporate entity and an under-resourced trust. The root problem remains: Who foots the bill for the toxic legacy left behind? Here are some potential pathways for reform, grounded in the language and lessons from the legal source:

1. Strengthening CERCLA Enforcement
   The U.S. government should expand resources for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue cases like Bradley Mining earlier and more aggressively. If, as the document states, corporate counsel can disclaim existence of the defendant itself, that underscores the need for swift legal action before companies fold or shift assets.
2. Mandatory Financial Assurance and Bonds
   For high-risk industries like mining, requiring upfront financial assurance (surety bonds, escrow funds, or specialized insurance) can guarantee funds remain available for cleanup. If Bradley Mining had been forced to post a bond covering full remediation costs, dissolution would not relieve them—or their heirs—of liability.
3. Trust Reform
   As seen in the modification, the trust that was supposed to oversee these parcels was drastically underfunded. Future consent decrees should impose stricter provisions to ensure trust viability—maybe by guaranteeing a certain minimum balance or requiring corporate participants to contribute more than a nominal share of proceeds.
4. Greater Transparency and Public Input
   The broader community, especially the Elem Indian Colony, should have direct oversight and input into the trust’s actions, funding allocations, and timelines. If the trust was created to benefit them, their voices should be central in its governance structure.
5. Grassroots Consumer Advocacy
   Even though contaminated mine sites may not directly produce consumer goods in a typical sense, public pressure can still influence corporate behavior. Consumers can demand that resource-extracting companies adopt genuine corporate ethics by verifying that companies are paying for any pollution they create, respecting indigenous rights, and ensuring safe working conditions.
6. International Collaboration
   Because these types of cases arise worldwide, sharing best practices and coordinating on legal strategies can help communities everywhere hold corporate polluters accountable. Transnational corporations move across borders with ease; accountability must be equally agile.

Ultimately, the Bradley Mining fiasco underscores that the system as it stands is not sufficient to protect local communities from harmful industrial practices. If the only recourse is a lengthy legal battle that yields an underfunded trust and an absent corporate defendant, the cost to the environment and public health is incalculable. Real reform requires structural changes that do more than rely on after-the-fact enforcement. It demands that corporations be compelled, from their inception and through every phase of operation, to account for the impact on public health, local economies, and the environment.

Quote-worthy line #1:
“The Redevelopment Trust does not have sufficient funds to carry out the duties” is more than a statement—it is a moral indictment of corporate practices that rely on profit-driven deregulation.

Quote-worthy line #2:
A shell trust with no resources is effectively no trust at all—it is an abdication of corporate responsibility, hidden behind a façade of compliance.

---

Concluding Note

The saga of Bradley Mining Company, as exposed in the First Modification to the Consent Decree, offers a painful lesson in how corporate greed, deregulation, and a labyrinthine legal framework can converge to harm the very communities that depend on environmental and economic stability. The Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site stands as a grave reminder that legal settlements on paper do not always translate into real-life remediation. Decades after the contamination first began, the Elem Indian Colony still navigates a precarious landscape of hazardous substances and unfulfilled promises.

The final word? If we continue to allow corporations to dissolve at will, abandon their liabilities, and exploit loopholes to avoid cleaning up after themselves, stories like Bradley Mining will keep repeating in different forms. It is incumbent upon government regulators, communities, and advocates worldwide to demand better from a system that so often puts profits over people. Until that fundamental hierarchy shifts—until the health and well-being of human communities and the planet outweigh corporate bottom lines—these tragedies will remain a feature of neoliberal capitalism, not a bug.

---

The Department of Justice includes a link to this lawsuit: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1384681/dl?inline

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

• 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
• 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
• 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
• 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
• 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

1. The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
2. Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
3. The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
4. My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....