two trading days to go, page-12

Here's my view:

1. The only thing we have to worry about is if an injunction is issued.

2. Even if the judge decides that judicial review is apt, she has to look at the requirements to issue an injunction. The requirements are all avenues exhausted for redress and that there is a good chance irreparable harm will be done. This will be extremely hard to do with all of the scientific bodies saying it is safe and government decisions pending.

3. The argument that the AELB did not follow the law is extremely weak and already discussed.

3. The judge should defer to the governmental processes in this case and she can make a decision on the merits. She can say that all procedures in existence were followed and that there is no evidence that irreparable harm can be done, defer to the government processes and dismiss the case. This is my hope.

4. If she just defers to the government as soon as the government decides to issue the TOL, they should file another case. This is why we hope for a favorable judgement on the merits. They can come up with a different argument, but they are going to have come up with some supporting evidence of harm to gain any traction. There is no credible supporting evidence for harm, just the opposite.

5. This case is a hail mary with weak arguments and no evidence so they need a favorable judge. It is unlikely they have a favorable judge, but it can't be ruled out entirely. Right now we are being harmed. We need to ship concentrate. I hope there is a plan in place to get the ore to the plant faster, and if I had such a plan I would not talk about it.

6. The argument that all three branches can discuss an issue simultaneously ignores normal court functioning. I think the letter taking back the TOL was made so that the attorneys could say that nothing had been granted and the TOL not issued and have nothing appear to contradict that.

7. The minister's decision is not subject to judicial review, but that is only what he decides upon. The court decides whether they followed the law or not and if there is a good chance of harm. It appears the difference between a detailed EIA and a Preliminary EIA is a technicality with no indication of harm. The argument that the detailed EIA flows from the 1974 act is a bazaar claim that has a whisper of a chance with the right judge.

I think we are safe, but let's get this over with.