07-11-2015, 06:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by opihikao
(With due respect to Mr. Tom) This report is inaccurate and incomplete on several levels (purposely), due to potential use in litigation. With today's tehnology, videos and pictures should be included as hard proof.
The media (with the exception of Hawaii News Now) is falling into the category of "propoganda" with this kind of reporting. Proof is in actual events, not opinion and surmising what transpires/transpired.
The Mauna Kea ranger reports (from April) that someone sent me seemed legitimate. It included pictures of the protestors actions, as far as I could see. There is no reason my mind these rangers would falsify these reports to make the protestors look bad.
On that note, there has been certain things you've stated on here,Opihikao, that haven't been accurate either. For example, you stated in a previous posting:
quote:
TMT cannot provide "reparation", nor should they (not their fight), and has permits to proceed. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise (which is quite possible; reference US Federal law. "106" will be presented as case history with regard to funding of TMT; oral arguments set for August) it could be a problem for all of us. TMT will appeal, sue the State, etc., etc., etc. Hot freaking mess.
I verified through alternative means that your comment above isn't accurate - not by a long shot.
The current appeal that will be heard by the Hawaii Supreme Court deals with these four points- none of which deal with if a Federal Section 106 consultation is necessary.
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/ora...edule.html
(1) the trial court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the BLNR's approval of CDUP HA-3568 prior to the contested case hearing did not warrant reversal;
(2) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred by affirming the BLNR's approval of UHH's CDUA and the reliable, probative and substantial evidence failed to support the findings and conclusions that the eight criteria of HAR [Hawai`i Administrative Rules] ' 13-5-30© were met and such conclusions were wrong;
(3) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the CDUP was subject to a sufficient management plan; and
(4) the circuit court was wrong and the Board of Land and Natural Resources failed to meet its legal and constitutional obligations in properly identifying and determining the scope of the valued, cultural, historical and natural resources in the petition area; in determining the impact on these resources by the proposed land use in the conservation district; and in failing to take feasible actions to protect such resources by improperly delegating its duties and obligations.
The Advisory Council for Historical Preservation even opined in a letter dated June 25th, 2014 to the TMT that a Federal Section 106 consultation isn't necessary for the Thirty Meter Telescope. The ACHP is the agency that oversees all federal agencies compliance with all federal historical preservation laws.