Hi Guys,

Happy New Year to you all.

Something has been bugging me about the Jan 5th hearing and, since this board has been so quiet lately, I figured I'd throw something out there and get everyones thoughts.

I tuned-in to the entire hearing last week and, for context, Judge Du was quick to remove any politics out of her courtroom and provide all parties with their due (pun intended) in arguing their case. Her questions and responses were balanced and reasoned giving very little away. However, when LAC counsel wanted to introduce declarations from Glenn Miller and other sources as to the validity and sustainability of the mine, it appeared as though she slipped a little and this is where I'm stuck.

Initially Judge Du allowed the declarations to be entered and had asked the plaintiffs (Bartell, Enviro, Tribal) if they'd had any objections to the delcarations being entered in the Record of Adminstration which, except for Bartell, was met with relative ambivalence. She then proceeded to circle back to these declarations at three different times throughout the hearing asking for the plaintiffs to respond in a more precise manner. It was clearly weighing on her. Then (and this is where it gets interesting) at the very end of the hearing she abruptly and unpromptedly changes course by announcing "I've decided not to allow the declarations in question to be entered into the Record of Administration as they will not have any impact on my currrent line of thinking." She then followed up with the much publicized "I'll have my decision written, well, within the next couple months."

My quandry is this: If she was going to rule against LAC, at least in the sense of Vacatur, it wouldn't make sense to me to allow, then disallow the declarations after trying so painstakingly hard to be balanced in reasoned up this point. It would make more sense if she were going to rule in favour of LAC, probably in the form of remand WITHOUT injuction or vacatur (my opinion), as she wouldn't want these last-minute declarations to be viewed as the swaying peice of evidence when her mind was already made up.

Furthermore, when this is taken in conjuction with the fact that she's previously stated she wants to have this case settled "prior to construction season" - I know it threw us all for a loop when she mentioned it last fall and LAC PR statements were saying the decision would be known by September - it makes a lot more sense now considering a "couple of months" will be March which is, generally speaking, the start of construction season. 

I'd love to get the boards thoughts on this.

Also, just for discussions sake, here are my guesses on the coming ruling

Bartell: Affirmative BLM/LAC or Remand w/o vacatur or injuction

Environmental: Remand w/o vactaur but POSSIBLY injuction while mineralization is proven on waste rock tailing grounds

Tribal: Affirmative BLM/LAC