Nordic Aquafarms' alleged TRI challenged again LISTEN to testimonies of 3 attorneys before Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Sept 8th, 2-22

The furious legal fight that has so far fended off aggressive polluter-wannabee Nordic Aquafarms continues. 

Listen as each of the legal eagles soars then swoops to the attack.  From  ever awesome eco-lawyer  Kim Ervin Tucker, to her opponents that day: Nordic's hired legal guns:  David M. Kallin of Drummond Woodsum  and David Perkins of Curtis Thaxter (and their entourages). . Each recording starts with an intro

Intro and Attorney Kim Ervin Tucker speaking for shoreowners  Mabee-Grace, Friends and the Lobstering Representatives  6min 42sec

Atty David Perkins, Curtis Thaxter, pro Nordic,  8min41sec 

Atty David M. Kallinn  Drummond Woodsum   for Nordic  & QA 16min 

Atty Kim Tucker's Rebuttal 3min14sec   (to end of state recording)

Yes,  that tideland is what  Nordic's  wastewater and water intake pipelines must cross to reach Penobscot Bay.  The combination of  shorefolk and fishfolk and their legal team has been potent against the machinations of  Norwegian investors, their legal team and, regrettably, those Quisling types ever ready to bend the knee to Big Money, local or global.

Justices of Maine's Supreme Judicial Court.

Hon. Valerie Stanfill Chief Justice
Hon Rick E. Lawrence Associate Justice
Hon. Andrew M. Mead Associate Justice
Hon. Joseph M. Jabar Associate Justice
Hon. Andrew M. Horton Associate Justice
Hon. Catherine R. Connors Associate Justice
Hon. Rick E. Lawrence Associate Justice

Audio MP3s: ME Supreme Judicial Court hearing oral arguments on rockweed case 11/14/17

 Seaweed harvesters cut intertidal rockweed during high
tide, using cutting barges and handpowered pole cutting

On November 14, 2017 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments of an appeal by the seaweed cutting industry of a Maine Superior Court decision finding rockweed growing in the intertidal area  to be "owned" by the  shoreowner. SCROLL DOWN TO SPEAKERS

The case is  Kenneth W. Ross, Carl E. Ross And Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corporation, Plaintiffs / Appellees, V. Acadian Seaplants, Ltd., Defendant / Appellant.  CLF Amicus:   Docket # WAS-17-142

AUDIO MP3s
Part 0. Introduction  by Chief Justice 1min 44sec

Part 1 Acadian Sea Plants attorney & questions 13min 44sec

Part 2. Maine DMR attorney Connors & questions 5min 32sec

Part 3 Attorney Smith  for defendant & questions 19min 10sec

Part 4 Rebuttal by Acadian Atty to End 2min 43sec

Full recording 42 min 32sec 

TBNT appeals megatank permit approval to Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Thanks But No Tank! has filed a "Motion For Declaratory Judgement Voiding Recent Permit Modifications and Enjoining Further Permit Modifications During The Pendancy Of This Appeal" with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Read the Motion here (pdf)

TBNT is asking the state's high court to " vacate Appellee Department of Environmental Protection’s Dec.11, 2012 Findings of Fact and Order modifying and transferring Permit No. L-25359." and to  forbid the Maine DEP from issuing "any other Order transferring or modifying Permit No. L-25239".

The appellants state that "Under the longstanding precedents of this Court, once the appeal was filed, the Department was divested of its jurisdiction to reconsider, amend or modify that permit."

Sears Island - Maine Supreme Judicial Court rules on Huber v MDOT.

 The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has sent Sears Island activists back to the starting gate, ruling May 3rd to uphold a 2010 Superior Court decision that litigation is premature until Maine DOT actually accepts an application to build a container port on Sears Island.  

The state has sought to build a variety of facilities on the island since the mid 20th century, but opposition in the 1980s from Sierra Club and other conservationists in the 1990s and early 2000s has kept the island port-free and almost completely undeveloped.

Plaintiff Ron Huber of Penobscot Bay Watch, was disappointed but not surprised by the court's verdict. 

"I knew that the state's failure to attract a port wannabee would influence their decision," Huber said, "but had hoped the Law Court would examine the constitutionality of  Public Law Chapter 277 "An Act Regarding the Management and Use of Sears Island,"  This is the law that gives the Legislature's Transportation Committee veto power over all Sears Island management decisions.  I still strongly  believe it violates the Maine Constitution's Article 3: "Distribution of powers".

"Over the  years" said Huber, who filed his lawsuit as a private citizen, "the state has unsuccessfully sought applicants for one after another ecologically short-sighted schemes.  This latest plan for a container port on Sears Island would convert one of midcoast Maine's top inshore fish nursery shoals (map) for atlantic cod and a wide variety of fishes and shellfishes that inhabit these irreplaceable sunlit shallows, full of eelgrass-rich shoals and intertidal kelp beds west of Sears Island,  into a dredged-out, ecologically  low quality container port harbor," he said.

  Sierra Club's otherwise exemplary history of defending Sears Island has been tarnished by the present day Maine Sierra Club chapter. The chapter leadership, without polling its members, joined with the Baldacci administration in a Joint Use committee  and in , the face of much criticism  in 2009 joined with Maine Coastal Heritage Trust in  accepting a compromise that  surrenders part of Sears Island to port development, provided the rest of the island is kept free of development.  That compromise triggered Huber's lawsuit.

"I've got news for  Sierra Club and for Maine DOT: you can't replace nursery  shoals at the mouth of Penobscot River with anything but more shoals at the mouth of Penobscot River." Huber said. "An industrial port on-island  would be as bad for Penobscot Bay's cod and other saltwater fishes as building a new dam below Bangor would be for salmon, sturgeon and other diadromous fishes that rely on nursery habitats upriver. "

Maine's Supreme Judicial Court  found it could no more get a grip on the ecologically and constitutionally sticky issues raised by  the case than the Knox County Superior Court could, he said.

Huber, who was part of the successful fight to thwart Angus King's port plan for the island  said that the ruling leaves the door open for he or other plaintiffs to file a fresh case if Maine DOT does get an applicant to build a port on Sears Island. 

"I have a message for Maine DOT" he said:  "Go ahead....Make My Day."

Sears Island: Maine Supreme Court told "solemn occasion" merits their intervention

I went to Portland Friday and, as required, filed my Sears Island Supreme Judicial Court case's "Appellate Brief". By law, the Supreme Juidicial Court meets as the "Law Court" to consider appeals like mine. Here is a  link to the 20 page Brief and other filings

The brief (well I guess at 20 pages it's not very brief)  lays out my arguments as to why the Law Court should agree with me and tell the lower court (Judge Jeffrey Hjelm of Waldo County Superior Court) to take a fresh look at my case and actually consider the issues.

As a  non-lawyer's effort. this appeal is of course prone to imperfections that a legal secretary etc would polish away or prevent. Yet it takes a certain naiivete to break new ground. To raise one's head out of the box and chart a different yet logical course.  That is what the case attempts.

Judge Hjelm had ruled in September that since there wasn't an actual port plan out there, there was no way I or anyone else was being harmed by the conservation easement that gives 2/3 of Sears Island to Maine Coast Heritage Trust "in perpetuity", and defines the rest of the island as a "Marine Transportation Zone".  Something shamefully agreed with by the Sierra Club, which argued ridiculously in favor of MDOT's claim that the island could support BOTH an industrial port AND wildlife and scenic & recreational resources; the so-called "Joint Use" plan.

I told the Law Court that there was another issue I had raised in my case, one Judge Hjelm didn't consider. Can the Supreme Judicial Court make him consider it?

 I hope so.  I had to  raise a few..novel constitutional arguments.