2010-12-15 TFOULKexhibitD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

done at the top of backfill. Now, this is on the southwest portion of the property. I don’t know if you, I’m sure you Commissioners remember being there -. YEH: Mr. Chairman, I -. P. OLSON: I would like to finish my argument and I’m making a legal argument here. I’m trying to answer -. YEH: We are kind of veering from the issue of standing that we were talking about -. P. OLSON: No, this, respectfully, I would like to finish, and this is related, directly related to my argument and the harm that is present before the Kanuhas.I’m trying to explain how this inadequacy in the law has put their interest in peril. So now, the backfill portion of the property, it is not in dispute that the archeological survey testing went from the top of the backfill, okay, they did not go from the original grade. So essentially it was an exercise in futility; it’s equivalent to pouring a bucket of rocks on the ground two feet high and digging down -. YEH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olson is not an expert in archeological inventory surveys. Now we are veering beyond what he is allowed to do, and he is actually testifying -. P. OLSON: Respectfully, I would like to finish my argument here. YEH: And that’s the reason why we were ready to call Dr. Haun today about this issue. HOUSEL: Mr. Yea, I’m going to overrule your objection right now, so that we can let Mr. Olson finish his statement. P. OLSON: So essentially, that subsurface testing was equivalent to dumping a bucket of rocks two feet high on top of this carpet here, digging down to the carpet and say, oh, there is nothing there. Now, that is not in compliance with the spirit of law, okay? Now, and that was in error, okay? Because of this, the Kanuhas’ interest in protecting iwi -. They’re lineal descendants of this land. In his pre-hearing statement, Dr. Foulk purports that there is no iwi to be found on the property and there is likely no iwi. They cannot say that in good faith unless they’ve looked. And it is not in dispute they did not look. So the Kanuhas have a distinct interest in protecting the potential desecration of the iwi and the violation of law. And that’s their interest here and they couldn’t have th known this at the beginning of the case. They couldn’t have known this until after the August 27 hearing. We filed this petition a week in advance of this hearing today. They have a separate distinct interest, and that’s it. They have a -. That’s it. And I would like to elicit testimony. HOUSEL: Just so I understand what you are saying, it’s your opinion that the AIS has not been completed, so therefore this paragraph saying as far as the timely submission for the intervention has not passed. Is that correct? P. OLSON: Let me reiterate now. Under 4-6(e), there is no timeliness requirement. It is, this rule applies to this very situation, okay? Now, if, even assuming that, I will still argue under 6(a); the substantive measure, the substantive hearing, hasn’t really started yet, and there is no prejudice to the parties. We also argue that as a matter of law the Kanuha ‘Ohana was not aware that there was no EIS, or AIS, at the time of the initial hearing, nor should they have been aware of the inadequate AIS at the subsequent hearing dates. Here, the AIS was not submitted until two months after the 20 EXHIBIT D