Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another delay for our telescope
#21
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa

State has done TMT partners a huge favor: they can now wait to see how State doesn't manage the dengue fever outbreak, and use the courts' stay as an excuse instead of claiming that DOH incompetence is the reason they don't feel like risking $1.4B investment.

If you're going to tolerate third-world conditions, you might as well use an actual third-world location where you can take advantage of the flipside of those conditions.



You last sentence is an accurate and relevant observation. When will the state finally be held accountable? When they are the laughing stock of the world?
Reply
#22
kimo: Oh sure. Now the the Moon people are going to be all HuHu.

Who cares? Those moon foreigners are all ****ers anyway...

Wink

Cheers,
Kirt

edit: w an kers got bleeped? Sorry for any offense...but wouldn't want anyone to think I was f-bombing.
Reply
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Punatic007


When will the state finally be held accountable? When they are the laughing stock of the world?


Waddaya mean? That date passed long ago... We're going to end up like Puerto Rico - no economy, incompetent bureaucracy, and a broke government. But we keep electing the same morons who appoint their moron friends to run the agencies and serve on the high court, so who should we really blame?
Reply
#24
going to end up like Puerto Rico - no economy, incompetent bureaucracy, and a broke government

What do you mean "end up like"? We're basically there already -- State "can't afford" to manage the dengue outbreak, and that should basically finish what the TMT "protectors" started.

I gotta go get me a drum, so I can bang on it all day, it's all we have left.
Reply
#25
Punatic007 said: "When will the state finally be held accountable? When they are the laughing stock of the world?"

Well for people who know much about such matters, they already are.
Reply
#26
I don't see how the petitioners due process was violated and how the process was done irregularly when the TMT's CDUP was granted. The petitions had *two* opportunities to contest the permit; once during the contested case hearing, and the other after the hearing officer's preliminary findings were released.

This is the process the TMT went through to get their conservation district use permit. The BLNR conditionally approved the permit 2011 pending the outcome of the contested case hearing. That hearing was held in late 2011. The hearing officer spent almost a year analyzing the evidence presented and released his preliminary findings in late 2012.

He recommended the BLNR approve the permit, as he felt the evidence supported the granting of the permit (e.g: The TMT met all eight conditions to develop their project in the conservation district). The petitioners had one last chance to contest the hearing officers findings between late 2012 and mid -2013, but the BLNR officially granted the permit in mid-2013.

The petitioners had equal opportunity to contest the permit and the hearing officers findings. In short, there was no predetermined outcome. If the UH and the BLNR had better lawyers, they should've been able to argue the process worked as it supposed to.
Reply
#27
I don't see how the petitioners due process was violated

Take the long view: the protestors feel their "due process" was violated when Hawaii became a Territory -- even though none of them were alive at the time -- and as such, any/all actions taken since then are "fruit of the poisoned tree".

Reply
#28
And can I assume that if the court rules in their favor, the protesters will call it justice, but if the court rules against them , it will be considered invalid because the court is an agent of the illegal occupying government?
Reply
#29
The ol' reverse Catch-22.
Reply
#30
Originally posted by Aaron S
..The BLNR conditionally approved the permit 2011 pending the outcome of the contested case hearing...


In reading through the temporary stay of TMT's permit, this approval before the contested case hearings seems to be the main issue? Given your understanding Aaron, would you agree or is there more to it?

Does anyone know how long on average the State Supreme Court is currently taking to reach a decision? An article from 2003 stated the median time was 415 days but that a couple dozen cases were still pending after 4+ years. Hopefully it's gotten better?

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/articl...ln03a.html
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)