tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30940686.post8758263587331440156..comments2024-02-11T22:49:17.311-08:00Comments on Arizona Geology: Court hearing on northern Arizona uranium land withdrawal Lee Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11520300956249160005noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30940686.post-47977989632150455422012-11-19T14:12:01.048-08:002012-11-19T14:12:01.048-08:00I was the first of the Plaintiffs to present my or...I was the first of the Plaintiffs to present my oral argument. My impression is that the judge had some issues with both parties positions.<br /><br />The Judge seemed unimpressed with the Defenses contention that we were not injured. The Defense is claiming that we are not injured until we put forward a Plan of Operations for exploration drilling for a mining claim and go through a mineral exam and fail because we have not drilled it and already established a discovery. CATCH22. Then we would have had to appeal this negative mineral exam (after the claim was voided) to the IBLA and go through years of legal rangling, etc, etc. Then we would be injured!<br /><br />By then the statute of limitations on contesting the withdrawal would have passed. It seemed to me that the Judge was having a hard time with that.<br /><br />On our side, the Judge was having a hard time with many of us being within the "Zone of Interest of NEPA". I find that a bit difficult to understand myself as I believe that my pleadings put me squarely within the Zone of Interest of NEPA.<br /><br />If I am within the Zone of Interest of NEPA, then I will be able to litigate the sufficiency of the EIS itself.<br /><br />If not, I will have to accept the EIS as written and Litigate the Secretary's ROD as arbitrary under the APA as not being supported by the EIS as written. In addition I have a constitutional question under the establishment clause that will most likely be litigated as well.<br /><br />GregoryGregory Yountnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30940686.post-4978601155261045052012-11-12T19:59:49.134-08:002012-11-12T19:59:49.134-08:00Lee,
I was the first of the Plaintiffs to present...Lee,<br /><br />I was the first of the Plaintiffs to present my oral argument. My impression is that the judge had some issues with both parties positions.<br /><br />The Judge seemed unimpressed with the Defenses contention that we were not injured. The Defense is claiming that we are not injured until we put forward a Plan of Operations for exploration drilling for a mining claim and go through a mineral exam and fail because we have not drilled it and already established a discovery. CATCH22. Then we would have had to appeal this negative mineral exam (after the claim was voided) to the IBLA and go through years of legal rangling, etc, etc. Then we would be injured!<br /><br />By then the statute of limitations on contesting the withdrawal would have passed. It seemed to me that the Judge was having a hard time with that.<br /><br />On our side, the Judge was having a hard time with many of us being within the "Zone of Interest of NEPA". I find that a bit difficult to understand myself as I beleive that my pleadings put me squarely within the Zone of Interest of NEPA.<br /><br />If I am within the Zone of Interest of NEPA, then I will be able to litigate the sufficiency of the EIS itself.<br /><br />If not, I will have to accept the EIS as written and Litigate the Secretary's ROD as arbritrary under the APA as not being supported by the EIS as written. In addition I have a constitutional question under the establishment claus that will most likely be litigated as well.Gregory Yountnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30940686.post-29657123131658207622012-11-12T17:15:23.867-08:002012-11-12T17:15:23.867-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.GREGORY YOUNTnoreply@blogger.com