08-27-2015, 04:28 PM
Okay, if anyone else wants to listen to the MP3, you might as well start at the 35 minute mark. The issues are much more crystallized when the appellee's attorneys got up. Best as I can tell, the issue is whether there was sufficient due process in the permitting process, and more specifically, whether there was a "contested case" hearing BEFORE or AFTER there was a preliminary decision to have TMT go forward. The analogy the judges used was contrasting on the one hand a situation where both sides got to say their peace, and then a judge rendered a decision; and on the other hand a situation where a judge preliminarily ruled for the plaintiff, and then told defendants that they could try their best to convince the judge otherwise.
This didn't sound particularly good for the TMT folks, but as is often the case when listening to oral argument, the judges simply push the ultimately prevailing party harder so that the losing side feels as though they got a fair shake. It certainly didn't help that the anti-TMT argument was so disorganized and so divorced from the pertinent rules and regulations.
This didn't sound particularly good for the TMT folks, but as is often the case when listening to oral argument, the judges simply push the ultimately prevailing party harder so that the losing side feels as though they got a fair shake. It certainly didn't help that the anti-TMT argument was so disorganized and so divorced from the pertinent rules and regulations.
Leilani Estates, 2011 to Present