04-20-2017, 10:40 AM
Hearing Officer Amano has ordered a minute order regarding all evidence submittals.
https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/04...der-44.pdf
Included is a 50 page spreadsheet going exhibit by exhibit, objection by objection. Quite the herculean effort.
For the UHH objections of "immaterial and irrelevant", generally it was ruled to be "Received over UHH objection. Hearing Officer will determine application and weight of the evidence, if any."
There are a few exceptions, most with MKAH-Pisciotta-Neves w/ about 10, when evidence was denied for that reason.
Otherwise most denials were for the "protectors" b/c of duplication (e.g. multiple parties submitting the Comprehensive Management Plan), submitted case law as evidence which is denied as "legal argument is not evidence, law speaks for itself", or because it was "untimely" (offered after the contested case was concluded).
All of TIO (except one case law citation) and PUEO exhibits were accepted over objections. 3 exhibits of UHH were denied b/c Flores-Case objection that he didn't "...have an opportunity to cross-examine the exhibit though [sic] Mr. Gosser or Ms. Collins". [A-141, A-142, A-143]
Unfortunately for Vicente, though predictably, he had all of his evidence denied. His evidence was concerning the Northwest Ordinance and Hawaiian sovereignty.
Objections to this minute order for the parties need to be filed within five business days since April 20th. I think the process is moving along.
https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/04...der-44.pdf
Included is a 50 page spreadsheet going exhibit by exhibit, objection by objection. Quite the herculean effort.
For the UHH objections of "immaterial and irrelevant", generally it was ruled to be "Received over UHH objection. Hearing Officer will determine application and weight of the evidence, if any."
There are a few exceptions, most with MKAH-Pisciotta-Neves w/ about 10, when evidence was denied for that reason.
Otherwise most denials were for the "protectors" b/c of duplication (e.g. multiple parties submitting the Comprehensive Management Plan), submitted case law as evidence which is denied as "legal argument is not evidence, law speaks for itself", or because it was "untimely" (offered after the contested case was concluded).
All of TIO (except one case law citation) and PUEO exhibits were accepted over objections. 3 exhibits of UHH were denied b/c Flores-Case objection that he didn't "...have an opportunity to cross-examine the exhibit though [sic] Mr. Gosser or Ms. Collins". [A-141, A-142, A-143]
Unfortunately for Vicente, though predictably, he had all of his evidence denied. His evidence was concerning the Northwest Ordinance and Hawaiian sovereignty.
Objections to this minute order for the parties need to be filed within five business days since April 20th. I think the process is moving along.