 |
|
|
|
 |
NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE WAR IN THE WRANGELLS |
|
| HALE v. NORTON |  |
|
|
MORE:
PRESS PHOTO! |
T.R.O.
HEARING |
|
= listen to the audio of the first federal court hearing on this extremely important landmark
case:
ROBERT HALE, ET AL. vs. GALE NORTON, ET AL. [A03-0257--CV]
HEARING RE: APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
[7.1 MB Windows Media File]
Monday, November 17, 2003, 9:00 am -
Federal Building 222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage
ROUGH DRAFT OF LOG [48:05 min]
0:00 - Court opens, Judge Ralph Beistline presiding; Russ Brooks, attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation opening statement; Judge asks "What do I do about the Vogler case?" - (11:05) Judge asks, "What does that mean ‘Subject to reasonable regulation'." Judge: no question that at one time it was a valid RS 2477 ROW. Can it be abandoned?
16:25 - Bruce Landon (DOJ) opening statement. Refers to Vogler case, Judge comments that he sentenced Vogler's murderer. Plaintiff's argument requires that the court find that their ROW is and RS2477...Judge interrupts, is that really true, what about the inholder access argument? Only QTA can be used to bring an RS 2477. Judge asks, do you mean to say that there is no way for an individual to bring an action? What if I have a piece of property that I have been driving to every day for years and a park is created and a fence goes up. You mean I have no legal way to enforce that. Yes on the 8th Circuit there is no way for you to bring a QTA? Judge, I'm not so sure I can accept that.
36:30 - Trustees for Alaska attorney Bob Randall - NPS get to choose first what the most feasible access is, not the user. Vogler, Garfield county and Northern Center cases ...
38:30 - If the court orders the use of a bulldozer today as urged by the plaintiffs then the Park Service loses its ability to manage and condition the plaintiff's use in a way that protects the fragile tundra, the steep slopes, the anadromous fish stream [Judge interjects, we're not talking about tundra, we're talking about gravel]. That legislative history concerns access to active mining claims, Judge, that makes a difference? Well it does...
42:25 - Russ Brooks - Opposing parties are relying on the Vogler case and if that falls so does their whole case. Factual differences of Vogler case. Pilgrims are seeking to use a road. They are not seeking to go off the road. Garfield county case. This is precedent in the 10th circuit and this is the 9th. But this is mere continued use, not the construction of Garfield County case. NEPA does not apply where the federal government has no discretion in its actions.
47:08 - Judge: I'm not a stranger to all this, I'm from Fairbanks Alaska...but my main concern is the law. I have tremendous respect for the law and I'm going to try and get the decision out in 36 hours.
48:05 - End
Send mail to [email protected] with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2001, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA.
