Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 04/6/2015 09:45

On the notification point for the applicant.

Again that has a legal requirement.

Sent by first class post or delivered in person. That doesn't mean they won't get an email, they will also get a letter in the post.

[superg1] 04/6/2015 09:42

Going back to the points someone else raised.

'a final decision must be issued within 90 days after a contested case is considered to be submitted for a final decision unless, for good cause shown, the period is extended for an additional time not to exceed 30 days.'

So going on the previous handbook entry.

It says a final decision issued within 90 days.

Handbook comment

After evaluation of the evidence and testimony given at the hearing, the
hearings examiner issues a proposal for decision to grant, modify, or
deny the permit. Within 20 days, parties adversely affected by the
proposal can file written exceptions to the proposal for decision.

On that basis it seems IOF already know what the final order is.

[festario] 04/6/2015 09:33

Ad nauseum...

[roundup] 04/6/2015 09:29

Ad infinitum

[superg1] 04/6/2015 09:17

Having viewed the water law debate it's easier just to read the hand book.

If valid objections are received, the DNRC conducts a hearing. After
evaluation of the evidence and testimony given at the hearing, the
hearings examiner issues a proposal for decision to grant, modify, or
deny the permit. Within 20 days, parties adversely affected by the
proposal can file written exceptions to the proposal for decision. The
parties may request presentation of briefs or oral argument before the
DNRC on the proposed decision. If no exceptions are filed or after oral
arguments are heard, the DNRC issues a final order. A final order may
be APPEALED to District Court.

So reading the above does the 20 days fall within the 90. If so and the above is the current process then IOF may well already know what the final order is going to be.

[bobsworth] 04/6/2015 08:48

IMHO there are just 3 keys needed now to switch on Iofina growth.

The first is the full granting of water rights with an associated upfront funded JV

The second is a rise in the price of Iodine.

The third is the continued demise of high Opex Chilean iodine mining companies.

Should all of these happen in the next few months then at current prices Iofina looks a stonking buy to me. NAI

[madchick] 03/6/2015 21:37

Surprised ADVFN have downtime at 7am, just when the rns's come out. Bet now that it's tomorrow that the IOF RNS comes out and no-one can post!

[gadolinium] 03/6/2015 21:17

I like your post 33015 Paul, it's short, concise and strait to the point.

[woodpeckers] 03/6/2015 20:24

D? (Is this a new game to pass the time while we wait for news?)

[spike_1] 03/6/2015 17:55

Freddie,
Thanks for adding the meat to your earlier post.
Best wishes - Mike

[roundup] 03/6/2015 17:54

Thanks Fred. Suggest submit your account to, "the old codger".

[freddievas] 03/6/2015 17:40

Roundup, yes I am a lawyer for my sins.

You say that the consensus was that there would be no Judicial Review. I am afraid that the whole point of JR is that (generally) the legislature may not deprive a person of the right to seek the Court's review of administrative decisions concerning him....and specifically the right to have an administrative procedure in which he is concerned conducted properly and a right not to be landed with an arbitrary or irrational decision.

As I recall somebody has posted the applicable regulations setting out the procedure for these administrative appeals, which confirmed the right of any person affected to seek further redress in the courts.

Turning to your point Cyberbub, none of this is supposed to suggest that I believe the old codger will have any valid grounds to seek judicial review. I have no knowledge of the US system, but would imagine that being a common law jurisdition the principles are very similar to those applicable in the UK, where the petitioner seeking judicial review has a difficult preliminary hurdle to overcome by persuading the Court that there are valid issues requiring the Court's intervention before the claim for Judicial Review is allowed to proceed.

I would doubt that he could have any valid ground for challenging a process which the Montana authorities have clearly bent over backwards to ensure is conducted fairly and straight by the book (as we know to our frustration).

What is more, the requirement that the HE provides a fully reasoned final decision would appear to minimise the possibility of an arbitrary or illogical decision, unless the HE proves to be incompetent or biased, which is exactly what the JR procedure is designed to protect the affected parties from.

An important point to bear in mind is that IOF may itself need to resort to the JR process if the HE, mindful of local sensitivities, delivers a decision which is unsustainable on a proper consideration of the applicable statutory criteria for the granting of licences.

Now to whom should I send my invoice? (I did say I was a lawyer!).

[cyberbub] 03/6/2015 16:27

Freddie yes those are the normal grounds for a JR. But I can't see that either procedural failings or irrationality are likely?

[woodpeckers] 03/6/2015 16:09

SG, you mentioned a while ago that you knew a way to get level 2 foc. I saw it a month or two ago on another board and made note of the link but have since lost it. Any chance you could share?

[roundup] 03/6/2015 16:04

Fred....do you mind if I ask you if you are a lawyer, or do you have a knowledge in these matters which lead you to make the statement about the Judicial Review? I understood that the consensus of opinion on this board was that there would be no Judicial Review.

[freddievas] 03/6/2015 14:15

AON, the decision of the HE is the definitive and final step in terms of the administrative process. There is then the possibility of either of the parties (applicant/objector) invoking a judicial review whereby the Courts are called upon to review the decision as being legally flawed, either in terms of procedural deficiencies or irrationality. That is a whole new story.

[rhwillcoll] 03/6/2015 13:46

ridicule: no probs. It's been a difficult time for us all.

[ridicule] 03/6/2015 13:26

rhwillcoll Thanks. On re-looking I think you are right. It does look like a rollover. I guess my investment here has been so disappointing to date that I have developed a natural pessimism. I am on about £2240 a penny - so far in largely the wrong direction!!

[angel of the north] 03/6/2015 12:43

The way I understand it - there are NO further appeals or actions available? The next decision is final.

[woodpeckers] 03/6/2015 12:34

Isn't he about 90? Surely he'll call it a day if he loses this now.

[kattatogaru] 03/6/2015 12:30

If the water decision went in IOF favour and Carlisle appealed it, would permit go ahead or would it be mired in limbo for the foreseeable?

[dropside] 03/6/2015 12:22

I guess he could rock up to the hearing examiner court and represent himself and it would cost him nothing. If he went to a higher court he could incur a lot of expense, would he consider this cost effective compared to his possible business loss?