Court Fraties

She might be called to prepare for an emergency. I think it's very important. Not in any way to patronize a facial support on a new patient's lineage. And through a society that's much more ancient with my own, not to patronize some of the fair supply needs to be described as a ability. The processes that are here to alleviate what they're like having in terms that there may be prejudice against them or lack of sympathy or their legitimate acceptance. And I can see in talk, although it's solicited to the Department of Council that appear to be forming in this part where they may proceed and try to get rid of the public reasons that I did. I'll have to look at that because that might be one of the employers that appear to be forming,

but in the public, that seek to understand the reasons why decisions are required that and the implications of the reasoning process that they've bought. So I think that I should say to the point of this before it even started my analysis of the legal opinion of the actual problem with which I've been presented. So if there's any question of sympathy or identity, I look in the Delta. I came from the poor family as many of them. And I know the importance of having food on the table, that I reject any argument that a fish person is nothing to be concerned about because there are times in the lives of some of our people out here that one fish on the table would be able to hurt or get to know it 100. I understand all of them. I identify from what the people are affected by this case are in that sense. My own people, my kids, are in the poor background.

I have a look here. I like to regard all of this as a family after the Delta. So I cannot allow that to enter it in my reasoning disorder. Because we have a figure that's often referred to with a expression of justices blind about a figure with a blindfold on it, something scales and people often think that that means that there's no justice. That's not true at all. The simplest thing with that figure is that the legal system doesn't take sides. The ladies are wearing a blindfold because he's not supposed to be able to see what's happening in the scales. All the way to allow the parties to put the evidence in the balance and the regardless of what the outcome is to do that. Equity according to the law and not to one's own personal commitment at the moment. When you consider what a mass power resides in this period of course.

The power to allow the searches of people's homes to run through a lot of their arrests to a sense of imprisonment. I think that it is easy enough to understand why it is that when I am asked to use the immense power of this court to impose what is a very, very harsh remedy in the case of this nature. I use it as a print dispersion. I use it with care. Now, I think we have to go through this point by point case. The initial point made by the point is the initial question that has to be resolved when I'm certain I'm going to throw out the legal reasoning in this so that my basis for mine. This doesn't have any example of my colleagues on the Supreme Court. One of the points made by the point is that the courts

have to do this judgment. As far as I can determine, the point of respect to the point that this is not a argument of public health or whether or not the board has acted as appropriate like or whether to use the words of art. It has acted unreasonably or abused as discretionary and arbitrary. But in a sense, whether or not there is an application of the law that I should interpret here. And that's instantiated by the argument that there is an intrapalability between the statute which we have been talking about, 16.0525A, and the existence in any of it, of 5aac.09.365, which allows the board to make the limited fishing available to the people that falls past to which the point is

subject. That there is a basic legal disparity there that I should intervene as resolved. I do not accept that premise. It seems to me from everything that I've heard that what we are dealing with here is a disagreement as to the meaning of facts and figures presented to the board. And it isn't driven as to whether or not the board has fulfilled its very important function of the statute that I have mentioned, of protecting our subsistence fishing. I don't believe that there is a basic disagreement or a disagreement that I have to resolve as to the meaning of abstention. And since I do not believe that there is a substitution of judgment question as is allowed where there is a disagreement of the law. I believe that with the Supreme Court of the North,

it is only where the question of one is one of the law that I am allowed to substitute my judgment for them to administer to the agency. And then, only whether it is a question of what is not involved, agency is expertise. Where the question is to the merits of the agency action on matters committed to agency discretion, the scope of review is committed to whether the decision was arbitrary on a reasonable or an abuse of discretion. So, I'm announcing right now for the purposes of my colleagues at the bench as well as one of my fellow citizens about here. This question that I have is to decide, in my view, not a question of law, my question has to whether or not the department abused its discretion and adopted a foster that was arbitrary on reasonable or abusive discretion.

Of course, my decision on that is subject to review by the public court. And that is the way that I view the facts. And the presented to me on the argument, of course, that is the way the defendants view the situation as well. I don't take your time by saying that. I simply say that I am required to use unreasonable basis attempts. Now, using the reason and there is plenty of precedent for that, because one of my colleagues is on this, of course, the year of the last year, believe otherwise, and it was, but that was the correct answer for report to intervene in some work. That is a reasonable basis situation that I have to deal with. Was the board reasonable or did they abuse their discretion? It seems to me, without taking away, in any extent, from the very high level of heart and efficacy,

and the exciting argument of Mr. Smith, but what the plaintiffs have done is to seize upon one fact presented to or one series of facts presented to the board during heated debate as to what is appropriate to meet the standardized and admittedly high standards placed on them by the statute. And has taken that fact and has used that as a predicate for putting forward the idea that if this court does not allow for injunctive relief that somehow or another, we will have 9,000 people in the Delta region disadvantaged when clearly the law required that they be protected. And I must say for the record that I do not find any reasonable basis in the evidence for bullying or such. If I were to believe that there was a board at so far,

I have mentioned about the migration of the fish from false mass indicates that they may not be affected at all. Now, I am not going against the five and ten percent estimates as stipulated by counsel, but still another has been a great deal of explanatory information given to this court that indicates that the findings have simply failed to carry in to any extent. They haven't even raised in this court's mind the possibility that there is going to be a substantial interim on the subsistence fishery of the Yukon by the river fisherman of the subsistence fisherman, much less raised it to the probability that there is going to have to do the show so that there will be

to undergo irreparable injury. It seems to me that the best view of the evidence is if there were a short call of fish, it is not going to affect the subsistence fisherman at all. Not this year, nor is there any evidence before me that would be deficient to such an extent that there will threaten future harvests of fish. I am going on all the materials that I have reviewed here at Franklin, all of the depositions, all of the analysis, all of the exhibits that were mentioned in argument only a small percent of those percentage of the were actually mentioned in argument. I don't have the evidence before me. Now, I don't say this in criticism of the very able counsel or blindness, but when you with threat request, this kind of delay,

it is your privilege to put on additional evidence if you wish. I have not had a fish biologist come before me and attest to the very dire conclusions from which counsel has reached my interpreting as an advocate. The effects and figures that were explained to the board at great life. So with all of that, when I consider whether or not the board was arbitrary, I don't have any evidence to take it. Now, whether or not they've made a mistake is something that I can't control, nor can any of the counsel here. Well, I am required by law, as I see it on the facts of this case, to go by the standard and unceded in the North Slope case, by meeting one of the seven second, one, one, two, and not substitute my judgment for what they may have done.

Unless I find that they were arbitrary and reasonable part of the day of use their discretion. I might do not. Now, whether or not they have abused their discretion, counsel or the plan is to make some very important point. That if, in fact, the board has used an improper balancing test for something that that makes your decision, and there is a probability, or substantial possibility, or whatever the law particularly calls the board, that these subsistence fishermen on the Yukon River are not going to be protected by the statute as they are intended to do. That regardless of the fact that they would have the severe impact, and I think I can use the word severe impact on this fight, whatever this agreement is like, and there are invasions of dollars involved for the false fast fishermen, and the ripple effect that goes

throughout the Alaska economy, from the impacting of that fishery to fight for to issue the injunction. I would still like to consider whether or not the under the latest view of this case, whether or not the incident was considered because the law was clearly being was not being followed despite the reason for the election, so the board is finished. And the injunctions standard, I think that we have all agreed here, at least in the moment of the lawyer, is not the A.D. industry's case, which is limited to a situation where the opposing party is not really threatened by the law at all, or upon this adequate protection, but rendered by the case of foul versus the city of Anchorage, five three six, just a minute second. One, two, two, eight. Tap page one, two, two, nine. But no, two.

This is 1975 case, but it hasn't been on the rule. And it plays out the basis for injunctive really. And there are four bases. So even though I've decided that I may not substitute my judgment for the board, and I have decided that the board has not been unreasonable or as it abuses discretion, I still must, I have done my view of law. I go forward and decide whether an injunction should be issued to protect the subsistence fishermen not understanding the works adherence to the criteria like that. And the executive standard is, as I have said, those four points have to be considered the likely good, the petitioner will prevail on the merits. It's the first point that I have considered. In other words, is it likely that the petitioner's will win their lawsuit? Because if it is likely, then perhaps I should issue injunctive relief to keep them from being harmed at

the prison time? Will there be a irreparable injury to the petitioners that is to the plaintiffs if I do not issue the injunction? Are they going to be so severely harmed that I should take immediate action to protect them while they're lawsuit goes forward? Is there adequate protection under the case that I have mentioned, Powell? For other interesting parts? And that is obviously all of the people that are impacting the default span. And what it may be is the harm to the public interest by what I choose. Let's take a look at the work right here. Are the plaintiffs likely to prevail on the merits? What the plaintiffs would ask, is this for music? And I am learning the spring for this, is that false bass be closed entirely.

And so far as likely to determine from the argument that it counseled for all future time? Not allowing any taking of these fish. Until the test nets and the sonar devices in the river have demonstrated that there is a matter of escape from the insufficient subsistence to protect them. Mr. Mitchell's clients. And as an alternative, if no such objective, the interruption is given by this court. The plaintiff's asked for $1 in liquid data damages. And so far as I can see, they do not make the connection in their grief between whatever actual damages they have suffered. And their desire to date $1 in dollars. But I'm not going to vote on that. Because obviously, counsels have always

commend their pleadings to some more viable theory of their hate. I'm not saying that it gets impossible for the plaintiffs to win. And I'm saying on the others that I have seen here and that I have been presented that they are not likely to prevail on such a failure. That the false vice fishery should be completely closed down. That commercial land arrests should be completely closed down and Kelvin has been just demonstrated to the level of satisfaction that they require that these subsistence resources have been protected. Because under the subsistence use and allocation of gains, 1.05, 1, 2, 5, 8, it is required that our subsistence fishermen are provided a reasonable opportunity to satisfy subsistence use.

And only after they have had this, only after their ability to, or the fish and game board has decided that they do have a reasonable opportunity to make a decision being made that other uses may be made up of the resource that is commercial uses. And that's all well and good as it should be. But I don't see anywhere in the statute that they had developed out that nobody else can take fish and tell the subsistence fishermen that haven't been either guaranteed to harvest or that they have caught all their fish only that they still could provide a reasonable opportunity and that their right to have a reasonable opportunity at the fish shall be considered first. Now, from my way of thinking as an advocate without taking all either side, it appears to me that a very sound

argument can be made for the defense that the fish can put the fish board and not be held in the center of waiting and telling the fisher in the stream as counsel or the plaintiff, so a suggestion that they should do, eliminating the false past fishery entirely as is the reasonable opposition. And it is in fact what I am asked to do by the plaintiff's claim is that they are both by their original action. They make it very clear that they are asking me to shut down the false past fishery. What I have asked to do at this time is to do it by injunction about what their complaint asks is that it be shut down permanently because there is no way from their point of view that the fishermen and subsistence in the stream can be protected otherwise.

And I do not find that they are likely to prevail on that particular point. Not so likely to prevail as to support injector really, but that's only one of the criteria. And if any one of these criteria fail, and not issue injector relief, the irreparable injury that is alive is, to this court's mind, a pure speculation on the part of the plaintiff is on the advocacy is exciting and to a very high level. But the proof that such effect is possible is a sad legal question. I am asked to accept because it's stipulated then so I will accept it. The five to ten percent of the chum salmon over there may be, which is a reasonable word if I have heard

what, may be identical to the fish that are eventually going to end up in our fall chum run in the U. Congress. The best estimate that I can find out is that there is a possible intersection of 120 to 40,000 in our post fish on the estimate that we have before. Thank you very much.