Day in Court

Today was the day that oral arguments were heard in Tompkins Country Supreme Court in the matter of Anschutz v. Town of Dryden.

There is a lot of paperwork one could read through, some of it kind of interesting.  

A bunch of parties including Earthjustice and the Town of Ulysses sent in proposed amicus filings, but since they were "untimely", that is submitted at the last minute and off the point, the judge declined to accept them.    Barbara Lifton filed a proposed amicus brief... not sure if that was accepted.

It was interesting that Mahlon Perkins, attorney for Dryden, filed a motion against allowing the Dryden Resources Awareness Coalition to intervene in the case.  DRAC is apparently helping Perkins anyway; if they were a party, then Perkins seemed to worry that others not aligned to his postion might also be able to be parties.

Earthjustice was filing for collection of other organizations: National Resources Defense Council, Brewery Ommegang, Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, Riverkeeper, Catskill Mountkeeper.  I guess I'll be retiring my Ommegang t-shirt.

Perkins filed a "Supplemental Memorandum of Law" yesterday which the West Law Firm representing Anschutz noted "mirrors almost verbatum" the filing by Ulysses... I guess Mahlon figured his position was weak and tried to sneak some cribbed noted in under the wire.  It wasn't clear to my quick browsing what became of that.

There's a lot of case law to absorb here.  My memory of serving on a Board of Zoning Appeals and Town Board in a previous life is that towns can't just outright ban legal activities. (Didn't Mahlon himself tell me that?) As this case advances throught the system, it's sure to be affected by politics and pragmatism: in an era when the state is getting desparate for income and energy, bans are unlikely.  If there is a political "settlement" to all of this, we're really arguing over the terms.

More when I hear from someone who knows more... everyone is working today.


Dryden Kitteh Advisory Team (DKAT)

Comments

Comment: 
Totally remarkable that the judge's pre-hearing rebuff to all the various self-appointed, late-filing, third-party "friends of the court" didn't even make the papers. In fact, exactly the opposite "fact" made the papers, so, since Earthjustice filed a brief, they were quoteable as "friends of the court." http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20111104/NEWS01/111040380/Dryden-defends-gas-ban-State-Supreme-Court?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE