US Forest Service Destroyed Portions of the Trail of Tears

Here is “Docs detail government damage of Trail of Tears.”

An excerpt:

The documents outline the extensive process the Forest Service employees should have gone through before doing the work but didn’t.

For instance, the ranger who approved the project told another employee they didn’t’ have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act because they did not own the land.

US and Industry Defeat Challenge to Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon Mine

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

140-1 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

146-1 US Motion for Summary J

147-1 Intervenors Motion for Summary J

151 Plaintiffs Reply

155 US Reply

156 Intervenors Reply

166 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises out of the proposed renewal of operations at the Canyon Mine in Northern Arizona. The Canyon Mine is a breccia pipe uranium mine located six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park, in the Kaibab National Forest, and four miles north of Red Butte, a culturally and religiously significant site for the Havasupai and other tribes.

Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams — Uranium Mining Dispute

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

71 Federal Motion to Dismiss

120 Havasupai Response

123 Federal Reply

126 Grand Canyon Trust Response

131 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Earlier post on this matter here.

Federal Court Refuses to Enjoin US Forest Service Decision to Reopen Canyon Uranium Mine

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Motion for PI

USFS Response

Plaintiffs’ Reply

Individual Aboriginal Title Claim Denied — US v. Lowry (CA9)

From the opening paragraph of the opinion, per Bybee, J.:

In this case we are presented with a question of first impression: Who bears the burden of proof when a defendant is charged with occupation of Forest Service land in violation of 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.10(b) and (k)? Must the prosecution prove that the defendant does not have individual aboriginal title, or is the claim an affirmative defense? We hold that the occupant claiming individual aboriginal title bears the burden of demonstrating such title as an affirmative defense. Applying that standard, we conclude that the defendant in this case failed to meet this burden, and we affirm the judgment of the district court upholding the defendant’s convictions.

Here are the materials:

Continue reading