On Monday December 4th, counsel for Aquafortis Associates LLC [AQF] filed their reply to the State’s brief which the State filed with the Court on November 15th. This latest filing brings the briefing schedule of the Clary Lake Water Level Order [WLO] appeal to a close. Next up, the Court will schedule a hearing so the parties can present their oral arguments. I expect this will be sometime early in the new year.

This final reply brief (only 11 pages) addresses the arguments presented by the State in support of the WLO and the procedures DEP used to establish it, and reiterates AQF’s arguments against the WLO that were put forth in their original brief. I consider most of AQF’s arguments to be categorically specious i.e., superficially plausible, but actually wrong. For example, AQF argues that 38 M.R.S.A. § 841(1) implies that DEP can’t issue a WLO on a breached dam (see page 4). Nice try. First, the statute says nothing of the kind and second, DEP doesn’t believe the Clary Lake dam is breached and neither do I, and for that matter, neither does MEMA. Nonetheless this doesn’t stop AQF from making that claim. They also continue to demonstrate their lack of understanding of the difference between a water level and a water elevation by arguing that the DEP didn’t establish a water level based on evidence solicited at the Public Hearing.

Here’s the brief:

• AQF Reply to Respondent’s Brief 12-04-2017

Stay tuned. I’ll post the court schedule as soon as I get it.

Wait. What?

After three and a half years of countless delays and numerous stays, the Clary Lake Water Level Order appeal is finally getting down to business. Late last Friday counsel for Aquafortis Associates LLC (AQF) hand delivered their 40+ page brief to Lincoln County Superior Court. AQF is requesting the Court “reverse, remand, or modify” the Clary Lake Water Level Order and this brief explains their reasons for their request. I wanted to get it on the website without further delay. I haven’t read it yet but I will do so shortly and will post my thoughts on it at a later date. 

• AQF Rule 80C Brief 10-06-2017

At long last, 3 Orders which we’ve been patiently waiting for since the hearing on April 25, 2017 have finally been issued by Lincoln County Superior Court Judge Daniel Billings. The first Order was a Joint motion for Extension of Filing Deadlines to April 28, 2017 (thanks for that!) and was GRANTED. The second Order has two parts, the first, Petitioner’s Motion for Taking of Additional Evidence and Discovery is DENIED, and Respondent’s Motion for Consideration of Extra-Record Evidence is GRANTED. The third Order pertains to Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Court Modification of the Record and GRANTS the motion with respect ONLY to those exhibits agreed to by DEP. The remainder of Petitioner’s motion is DENIED with respect to those exhibits DEP felt were not relied upon by them in preparing the Water Level Order [WLO] and hence were not relevant in a review of the WLO.

In short, these Orders represent a favorable decision for the State: DEP got everything they asked for while Aquafortis Associates LLC got none of what they asked for except for several concessions not objected to by the State:

• Superior Court ORDERS dated August 15 2017

So after three and a half years of delays, stays, and stalling tactics (and let’s not forget the 13 months of pointless mediation), the jockeying for position is finally OVER and the time has come to hear the arguments for and against the Clary Lake Water Level Order. We won’t have long to wait: included with the Orders is a Notice and Briefing Schedule which spells out the schedule for the filing of briefs and responses. Assuming everyone uses their allowed time to file their briefs and nobody tries to delay the proceedings further (I expect the Judge has little tolerance for additional delays from here on out) AQF’s brief will be due no more than 40 days from August 15th, by September 25th. The State then has 30 days from the filing of the Petitioner’s brief to file their response, by October 25th. Finally, the Petitioner’s response to the State’s response will be due 14 days later, around October 8th.

For background on the proceedings leading up to these Orders, see “24 March 2017: State files 2 Motions in Aquafortis v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection WLO Appeal” and “11 April 2017: State Files Response to AQF Motion to Modify Record.”

I have not heard anything about the Rubin/Ayer lawsuit lately but it seems reasonable to expect that with the WLO appeal now moving forward, that their suit against Kelley and Smith will also start moving forward.

A few weeks ago I posted about 2 filings by the State asking the court to consider the “mootness” and “justiciability” of a request made by Aquafortis Associates LLC [AQF] for additional discovery. In those filings the State asked the court to DENY the AQF motion. There is also another pending AQF Rule 80C(f) Motion Requesting Court Modification the [Administrative] Record that has now been addressed by the State. In English what it means is AQF wants to add various documents to the Record because they think they are important and relevant to their case. Personally I think the real purpose of this and similar motions is not the pursuit of justice at all, but rather, is simply to bury the court in ever growing piles of useless documents intended to bog down the legal proceedings and drag things out. Because that’s how the game is played. But I digress.

I’m sorry to be just getting to this now: back on April 3, 2017 the State filed DEP’s response to AQF’s Rule 80C(f) Motion Requesting Court Modification of the Record. The filing includes a Proposed Order for the Judge to sign should he uphold the State’s motion. Besides the legal mumbo jumbo that we all struggle with, there is fairly clear and understandable content in this filing and I encourage everyone to take a look at it. I’ll explain what it means below:

State Response to Petitioners’ Motion Requesting Court Modification of the Record

Continue reading →

On March 20, 2017 the State on behalf of DEP made two filings in Lincoln County Superior Court in their defense of the Clary Lake Water Level Order. These filings were made pursuant to the Court’s February 21, 2017 Order which (among other things) set the 3/20/17 deadline for the filing of “any additional motions concerning discovery or the course of future proceedings.” The first filing was a “Motion For Consideration Of Extra-Record Evidence For [the_tooltip text=”Mootness” tooltip=”In the legal system of the United States, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law.” url=”” background=”” color=””] and [the_tooltip text=”Justiciability” tooltip=”Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing” url=”” background=”” color=””] Purposes” and the second filing was the State’s “Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Taking of Additional Evidence and Discovery.” Both of these motions pertain to issues going to last August when the State submitted the Administrative Record and as far back as a year ago when Aquafortis Associates LLC [AQF] filed their amended petition (and the amended petition was required because the Judge threw Paul Kelley and his canceled company Pleasant Pond Mill LLC out of the case; see: 30 January 2016: Superior Court grants State’s Motion to Dismiss“).

Here are the latest filings- these really are fascinating documents and are well worth reading: Continue reading →

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] quick update to let everyone know what’s going on with the Clary Lake Water Level Order Appeal: back on October 4th counsel for DEP and Aquafortis Associates LLC (AQF) held a telephone conference with Justice Billings to discuss issues around the State’s requested discovery, Petitioners objections to it, and some other jurisdictional issues raised by AQF including their own requested discovery (see: 05 October 2016: Clary Lake Water Level Order Appeal Update). The Court’s conclusion at that time was that it needed “more time” to consider matters and the parties agreed to meet again towards the end of the month of October to continue their work to resolve the conflicts.

That delay stretched into 5 weeks: a conference has finally been scheduled for next Wednesday November 16th at 1PM. Presumably the issues surrounding DEP’s requested discovery and the other matters hanging fire will finally be addressed by the Court so the case can move forward. The State originally filed their request for discovery over 3 months ago, back on August 2nd. I sure hope the court can pick up the pace.

I will post a report as soon as I know something.

It has been a busy summer for me and I am just now getting around to catching up with what’s been happening with the Clary Lake Water Level Order appeal. I last posted on July 22nd about the Court’s June 7th Status Conference and resulting Procedural Order issued by the Court on June 17th which stayed the proceedings until August 1st and set a deadline of August 19th for the State to file the Administrative Record, and an outline of a discovery plan.

On August 17th Mark Bergeron of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection filed the Department’s “Administrative Record” which consists of 264 items on a CD. I did not make a copy of the CD, but I did copy the 20 page filing which lists all the various and sundry documents, photographs, and other items which comprise the full Administrative Record. The list starts with the Clary Lake Water Level Petition I filed with DEP on January 2, 2012 and ends with the Final Water Level Order issued by the Department on January 27, 2014 and includes everything in between. It’s an exhaustive list and just reading it for me was a tiring trip down memory lane. Continue reading →

We’ve all been anxiously waiting the June 1st deadline when lawyers for Paul Kelley (Pleasant Pond Mill LLC) and Richard Smith (Aquafortis Associates LLC) were supposed to submit a plan to DEP for repairing the Clary Lake dam and raising the water level of Clary Lake. Earlier this spring PretiFlaherty asked for and received several Stays of the proceedings in Superior Court, first on February 29th for a stay until March 26th and most recently on April 14th for a stay until June 1st. These stays were ostensibly to give them and their clients time to work on their proposal without having the lawsuit hanging over their heads. The State agreed to both Stay requests, and their response to the latest clearly revealed DEP’s deep-seated frustration over lack of progress and their belief that June 1st was the latest they could afford to wait to receive a proposal and still have time to get the dam repaired and the lake level restored this summer. We were led to believe there would be no more stays. We have been told that Mr. Kelley has been trying to raise funds to repair the dam. We have been told repeatedly that the DEP Commissioner is deeply committed to getting the lake level restored and the Water Level Order upheld this summer. In recent months, DEP has publicly maintained an assertive stance that gave us reason to feel cautiously optimistic that finally, after years of maneuvering, come June 1st we were going to see some real progress.

It was not to be. At least not yet apparently. June 1st has come and gone and no formal plan to repair the dam has been submitted to DEP. It remains to be seen what DEP will decide to do next. We will know more after the upcoming Status Conference in Superior Court which is scheduled for this coming Tuesday June 7th, at 3:30 PM.

Stay tuned.