Re: WSJ article today on Hokukoa project (pg B1, col 2)


On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:

 If you still don't understand the term, then in plain
 simple English...go look it up.  If you don't want to
 do so, don't...no one can make you. But in not doing
 so, don't obfuscate with
 complaints/comments/arguments about "legal research",
 "technical terms", "plain English", and "not wanting
 to explain your ideas".  Just come out and state
 clearly and simply in plain English - "I don't
 understand the term.  I don't want to read how the
 ruling addresses the term and I don't want to look up
 the term."


I think that I've done all of this. You seem to think
I'm obfucating. Odd......

 I think you want to discuss what's wrong with
 the law. And insist that I made some such kind of
 statement.

****** 

 Nope...don't want to discuss what is right or wrong
 with this law. Never did say I wanted to, don't, and
 never will.  IIRC I said early on, I'm no legal
 beagle.  IIRC all I said I want is clarification in
 and of itself of your 7/23 statement "I would expect
 that if the developers had obeyed the law, then there
 should be no problem with the law".  (If you need
 your 7/23 post displayed here, let me know and I'll
 re-post it.)  IIRC I said I find this statement by
 itself to be logically confusing and sought
 clarification.


Afraid that I can't be any clearer with the obvious.

But this is an important subject. And I'm curious that
you don't want to discuss it-- even after bring up this
subject in the first place.

 1) The statement implies that there is a problem
 (unspecified) with the law...any law (pick a law).
 If there is no problem at all, at all, at all with
 that law you picked...then logically we have a moot
 point and the statement is vacuous.  (If there really
 is no problem with the law, then there is no problem
 with the law regardless of what anyone - you, me,
 developers, you name it - does.) 2) The statement


No the problem is one of enforcement. I assume that you
don't consider this to be a "problem with the law".

There hasn't been enforcement before because no one has
been provoked like the neighbors of Hokulia-- by that I
mean the environment-- for the damage caused by
grading. It's a little similar to the reaction on Kauai
of the auto dealer from Honolulu, Pleuger, who did some
unauthorized grading on his property and caused some
environmental damage to the pristine waters nearby. He
could have gotten away with the illegal grading if he
had not provoked people who use the waters of the area.

Seems like it really takes provocation of victims to
get enforcement. For example, saw a show on public
Television about these three leaders of a group in
Louisiana. All three claim to be cancer survivors of
the polution from a nearby oil refinery. Rather than
just moving away, they decided to sue the plant. The
plant has probably been there for decades violating the
law and getting away with it. Now, this group has had
some help from a non-profit group to do their own
air-sampling in the neighborhood of the plant and with
that test data and the help of law students from a
nearby university have filed a suit. It looks like now
they'll be able to enforce the law on the plant through
a judge's decision. The plant isn't entitled to violate
the law just because no one has caught them at it in
the past.

 I note that you no longer comment/complain about not
 finding the laches discussion in the ruling.  I trust
 this absence means you have indeed read the entire
 ruling and have specifically found Paragraphs 11-25
 under the "Conclusions of Law" of the ruling....good
 going!


No it doesn't. It means that I did read it, didn't see
the connection, and am not interested in a subject that
you have no interest in discussing.

--alvin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Looking for facts about fires caused by compact florescent bulbs
    ... For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, ... Citizens downwind of the filthy plant don't give a fuck what the ... Pollution credits are a crime. ... they're part of established law. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • QRe: "Pride of Place Plants" Moron or Lunatic
    ... You've got a great website and I'm ... Or is it that the fig tree is crowding the original plant and I need ... > Notice of Patent Entitlement ... > in contravention of the law. ...
    (rec.gardens)
  • Re: Looking for facts about fires caused by compact florescent bulbs
    ... For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they buy the right to do nothing. ... Citizens downwind of the filthy plant don't give a fuck what the utility's shareholders want. ... And, no they're not a crime, they're part of established law. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Looking for facts about fires caused by compact florescent bulbs
    ... What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which ... Citizens downwind of the filthy plant don't give a fuck what the utility's ... Pollution credits are a crime. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Can you decrypt this?
    ... I was reassuring to plant you some of my reduced sights. ... let_'ss the law among hers and downstairs flicks. ... It presumed, you mistaked, yet Founasse never cautiously coloured ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading