08-27-2015, 04:11 PM
I'm listening to the MP3 of the hearing now. I'm through the first 35 or so minutes. The argument from the appellants (the anti-TMT folks), is just awful. The argument lacks any cognizable organization, and I can't even tell what the crux of the argument is - i.e., what is the legal basis, and what the supporting facts for that basis are. Instead, the argument is effectively stream of consciousness conclusory arguments ("this was railroaded," "this shouldn't be built," etc.). There were no legal citations, no analogizing of cases, nothing.
Only at the 32 minute mark did I get any semblance of an argument, and that came from one of the judge's questions. Best as I can tell from the question, and the context from everything else in the 32 minutes, the legal "issue" is whether the government changed its rules to require less in 2011 for the permit process than it did before then, and - according to the appellants - what TMT provided was perhaps enough to satisfy the post-2011 rules, but not enough to satisfy the pre-2011 rules.
Just getting to the appellee's argument - will comment on that if I can stay awake for another hour...
Only at the 32 minute mark did I get any semblance of an argument, and that came from one of the judge's questions. Best as I can tell from the question, and the context from everything else in the 32 minutes, the legal "issue" is whether the government changed its rules to require less in 2011 for the permit process than it did before then, and - according to the appellants - what TMT provided was perhaps enough to satisfy the post-2011 rules, but not enough to satisfy the pre-2011 rules.
Just getting to the appellee's argument - will comment on that if I can stay awake for another hour...
Leilani Estates, 2011 to Present