RE: update on court case in IdahoMosquito is added to the court case as an intervenor/defendant. IMO, the whole file deserves a careful read.
From the recently filed December 31, 2011, financial statements
14. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
d) The Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Rivers United and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society are challenging the United States Forest Services’ (“USFS”) approval of the exploration program on the Company’s Cumo Molybdenum Property. No claims are against the Company. However, if the claims against the USFS are successful, the exploration program could be interrupted or limited in scope. The case is in its early stages and the unfavorable outcome is neither probable nor remote.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE et al
Plaintiffs,
vs.
vs. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
) (Docket Nos. 23, 27, 29, 30)*
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, )
)
Defendant, )
)
MOSQUITO MINING CORP., )
)
Intervenor-Defendant.
https://www.advocateswest.org/sites/default/files/case/CuMo%20Mine/files/CuMo%20-%20ICL%20sj%20reply-response%20brief%20FILED.pdf
Case 1:11-cv-00341-EJL Document 45 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 4
...”Notably, the Forest Service does not agree with Mosquito Gold’s assertion that Plaintiffs’ NFMA claim is not justiciable. The Court should reject Mosquito Gold’s confusing argument that the NFMA claim is either not ripe or moot, when the record shows that the February 2011 EA and DN/FONSI violated NFMA as well as NEPA in approving the CuMo exploration project with RCA entries in violation of the Forest Plan standards”...
...”In its NFMA Brief, Mosquito Gold asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs’ NFMA claim here. See Docket No. 30-1. The Intervenor cites the Forest Service’s August 2011 approval of a Plan of Operations (PoO), which does not allow road crossings of streams or the location of drill pads and mud pits in RCAs unless Mosquito Gold seeks and obtains a supplemental PoO to get approval for such RCA entries, to contend that Plaintiff’s NMFA challenge to the February 2011 DN/FONSI is not justiciable. Yet Mosquito Gold cannot even make up its own mind as to whether that is because Plaintiff’s NFMA claim is unripe or it is moot. See id., pp. 11–12 (asserting both that the NFMA claim is unripe or that it is mooted by the August 2011 PoO).
Notably, the Forest Service does not echo this jurisdictional objection, which the Court should reject as unfounded whether it applies ripeness or mootness principles”...
...” Thus, Mosquito Gold is incorrect in asserting that no incursions into RCAs are permitted under the PoO. Thus, Mosquito Gold is incorrect in asserting that no incursions into RCAs are permitted under the PoO violating the Boise Forest Plan standards and NFMA under Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court may deny Mosquito Gold’s motion to dismiss this claim for lack of justiciability on this ground alone”...
...” It is difficult to understand, then, Mosquito Gold’s assertion that Plaintiffs somehow filed this lawsuit prematurely in July 2011 to challenge the February 2011 DN/FONSI, after Plaintiffs adhered to the Forest Service’s notice and regulations, filed their administrative appeal, and the Forest Service denied that appeal. Moreover, in asserting that Plaintiffs really should have waited until the Forest Service approved a PoO before bringing suit, Mosquito Gold ignores the critical fact that the Forest Service was not obligated under its regulations to involve the public (including Plaintiffs) in approving any PoO for the CuMo project; no public notice was given of the Forest Service’s August 2011 approval of the PoO; and the public (including Plaintiffs) does not have the right to comment or pursue an administrative appeal from the agency’s approval of the PoO. See Docket No. 26-1 (PoO Approval Packet, which was not circulated to public and does not allow administrative appeal by any member of the public).”...
... “Mosquito Gold’s argument that Plaintiffs’ NFMA challenge is unripe essentially ignores all three of these tests—but particularly fails to acknowledge that Plaintiffs would suffer hardship and prejudice if the Court declines to resolve their NFMA claim now, because there is no assurance Plaintiffs would be able to obtain timely judicial review before Mosquito Gold begins constructing roads across streams or drill pads within RCAs under a supplemental PoO – which the August 2011 PoO expressly allows Mosquito Gold to seek.”...
... Likewise, the Court should be troubled by Mosquito Gold’s suggestion that it should bifurcate its judicial review here, by addressing only the NEPA claims now (which Mosquito Gold admits are ripe and justiciable) but resolving the NFMA claim in a second stage of the proceedings.”...
MSQ is now added to the court case as an intervener/defendant. The complete filing is a must-read document for shareholders.