Drakes Bay Oyster Company: From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - DENIED

To:  DBOC Attorney Peter Prows et al

From: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Re: Motion to File a Reply Brief

 

"DENIED" (January 2, 2014)

[Capital letters are the Court's]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a motion filed by Drakes Bay Oyster Company attorney Peter Prows in which he asks for little more than a "do-over". The motion filed is no different than a professional basketball player asking to have a second chance to take a shot which was blocked. The court viewed the request in the same way everyone else would, but responded with far greater restraint and simply wrote, in capital letters: "DENIED".

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall ...

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall ...
Within the motion DBOC attorneys claim when the Secretary made his decision not to issue a special use permit he should have somehow known that weeks later Corey Goodman would have released another of his many opinions on the EIS. Because the Secretary should have somehow been able to see into the future it therefor made false his statement that at the time of his decision he considered the controversies surrounding the EIS. The Secretary was fully aware of controversies over the EIS at the time of his decision and acknowledged that fact. DBOC attorneys claiming the Secretary should have been able to see into the future does not make his statement false. Seen in the motion is how far the attorneys for DBOC have fallen. Seen in the motion is how fragile the shell holding their case together was, now lying in pieces on the ground.

DBOC attorney

Peter Prows

You cannot see the future but you can see the past ...
In response to DBOC attorney Peter Prows' belief the court should be made aware that the Secretary was not aware of Corey Goodman's after-the-fact opinion it is pointed out that DBOC attorneys have, in fact, repeatedly made the court aware of it. Five separate times. Claiming there is now a need to further delay a decision and wait for DBOC to submit something well known to everyone does little more than allow a single family to profit further from its expansive commercial operation in a wilderness area. Mr. Prows' memorializing his logic for a "do-over" will remain forever in the past, the equivalent of a professional basketball player complaining that it wasn't fair that his shot was blocked by a better player.

It's not complicated
Before the court is a very simple question which is whether Congress gave the Secretary the discretion to issue, or not, a special use permit. They did and the Secretary weighed whether the Wilderness Act was more important than one family's ability to profit from operating an expansive commercial operation within a wilderness area.