If you haven’t seen it yet, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus has (finally, at long last!) published an article about the Howell Township ordinance, which we’ve been mentioning for weeks. We have so much to say about it, we’re going to address it in multiple posts.
We’ll start with the headline, which, unfortunately, appears to have been written by Enbridge lawyers: (more…)
We have a LOT to say about Christopher Behnan’s article this morning about Enbridge and the Howell Township ordinance. It is deeply disturbing, even more disturbing (if you can believe it) than Behnan’s article yesterday about Enbridge’s cozy arrangement with the Livingston County sheriff’s department. There is a follow-up to that article this morning.
Stay tuned.
[Here is another request from the dedicated folks at POLAR. If you are able, please consider supporting their efforts.]
“POLAR had its weekly Board meeting today and we discussed our recent victories and our next steps to keep our momentum going. There are 4 fronts that require significant resources to turn our recent victories into permanent outcomes.
These 4 Fronts are where the battle is currently focused. Gary Field and Bill Tomblin outlined the legal steps and challenges in detail on our conference call.
POLAR is appealing to everyone to help gather the resources needed to turn our “foot in the door” into permanent outcomes that will protect our environment, protect our property rights and to hold this Canadian company accountable to the Citizens of Michigan.
Please donate what you can and contact everyone you know who share these core values and ask them to support our efforts through a donation to POLAR. POLAR has already committed funding to these efforts and will continue to do so to the extent we are funded.
You may donate now through the POLAR Website or you may send check or money orders to:
POLAR
C/O Jeffrey S. Theuer, Esq.
Loomis,Ewert,Parsley,Davis & Gotting, P.C.
124 West Allegan Street
Suite 700
Lansing, MI 48933
POLAR is fortunate to have the support of landowners and citizens who are concerned about companies that are seeking to take their land for purposes that may be harmful to the environment. You can do your part to help by making a donation today! Your support is greatly appreciated.”
This just in: we have documented confirmation that among the readers of this blog (and I assure you that there aren’t all that many) are attorneys from Enbridge.
Details tomorrow.
Earlier today, I wrote that the events of the past week had put some strong wind in our sails. The past few hours have brought even more good news:
First, the Detroit Free Press’s fine reporter Eric Lawrence has already written about the Brandon Township resolution— and Enbridge is now in a position to have to respond publicly.
Secondly, a Court of Appeals today denied Enbridge’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the MPSC approval of phase one of their project. That means that the appeal still has life and that Enbridge’s current construction work is being called into question.
More details as they develop.
From the Livingston Daily. We’ll have more to add to this very shortly…
Here’s a bit of breaking news: today the MPSC approved, in part, the appeal to delay a decision on phase two of the Enbridge project. The commission did not grant as much time as the intervenors requested, but they did give them more time than Enbridge wanted. So overall, I’d say the news is good. At the very least, it suggests that the commission understands that there are interests here other than Enbridge’s and that Enbridge does not get to dictate the terms of the process entirely– so that’s something. The commission says it wanted to “strike a balance between the interests of Enbridge and the intervenors.”
You can read the commission’s order here.
There’s been some interesting legal maneuvering taking place with regard to the appeal of phase one (U-16838), which we wrote about last week. Enbridge has filed a reply brief to the appeal and they’ve also asked to have the appeal dismissed. Counsel for those who filed the appeal has filed a reply to Enbridge’s reply (I told you it was legal maneuvering). It’s all pretty interesting stuff for law geeks.
A couple of issues at play involve (a) whether someone can be considered an aggrieved party for purposes of an appeal if that person was not a party to the original case; and (b) whether the law allows appellants to remain anonymous. Enbridge, obviously, says no and no.
We hope the Court of Appeals will disagree with Enbridge on both points, neither of which is directly relevant to real basis of the appeal: whether the MPSC’s Notice of Hearing was defective.
The appeal is probably a long shot, but we’re remaining hopeful. A decision is likely to come down from the Court of Appeals this week. Stay tuned.
A new appeal has been filed asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to vacate the state regulatory body’s approval of phase one of the Enbridge Line 6B “replacement” project due to “defective notice to landowners.” Let me explain (and please bear with me; it’s all pretty interesting).
First, a little background for those who might need it: Enbridge’s project is taking place in two phases. Phase one involves the “replacement” of a 50-mile segment of pipe running from Stockbridge to a pumping station in Ortonville (this is the part that runs through our property). Phase two will run from Ortonville to Marysville, Michigan (and on into Canada). (more…)