Re: DO ABOUT THE REGS
Marianne Dugan (mdugan@igc.apc.org)
Fri, 21 May 1993 09:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Um, as a just-graduated environmental lawyer (so take this with
the requisite grain of salt) judging from what the government has
done in the past, in such a case they would move to consolidate
all the 15,000 claims and that motion would be granted. Venue
would probably be moved to Washington, D.C., too. So rather than
dragging them down, this would be a minor irritation to them.
The closest incident on record is a guy who went around filing
mining claims, trying to stop development -- because he would
challenge any *valid* claim that someone made (you have to be
actually on the land doing work to file a mining claim; he
wasn't). Finally, when the feds wanted to build a dam or
something, this guy brought a couple thousand claims, each one
based on one of his mining claims, hoping of course to force the
government to defend each separate claim. The gov't moved to
consolidate, and it was granted, and then the claims were, in one
bundle, summarily invalidated. (The guy also wanted to force the
gov't to go through its usual slow administrative channels before
going to court; but the court held that the gov't had the
prerogative to go straight to court. The whole thing was over
very quickly).
Not to put a wet blanket on the idea, but .... maybe we *do*
need at least one Perry Mason. You guys know Brian Michaels here
in Eugene? Rainbow lawyer?
Marianne
Back to the Top Level: