Glad to see your post, Kate.  I had actually prepared quite a lengthy commentary about this morning's 1 hour and 55 minute oral presenation in Judge Du's Courtroom from the attorneys for both the Plaintiffs and for the Defendants.... however.... in the process of trying to update my post that was 99.99% finished with the news of Judge Du's announcement about denying the Injunction I inadvertently destroyed my own post.  Will Falk would have been happy because my comments were not favorable to him in the least.

I really spent a lot of time and effort on the proposed post and I did not make a copy so anything I come up with now will be a poor substitute.  As you know we were not allowed to record the event.  I was in my car at the time and had no way to make notes and I have already forgotten much of it, but I will try to make a few points.

The presentation by the attorneys varied from utilitarian and just going through the motions to a rapid and difficult, almost suttering style all the way to what I judged to be the most brilliant offering of one attorney in particular who schooled the rest of them as to what it takes to be ready to shine in a courtroom so much above the others as to put them in the "also ran" category. 

The attorney who shined?  The lady representing LAC.  She never hesitated for one second and spoke with authority, certainty, clarity and zest.  I thought she wiped the floor with all of the others, one man representing the Burns Tribe in Oregon possibly being an exception at times, but for the long dance she was the ballerina and he was a "Dime a Dance" guy.

There were flashes of brilliance for all of the individual attorneys, Mr. Falk included, but while the rest of them showed occasional brilliance it was the attorney for LAC who consistently and minute after minute showed she was giving the rest of them a tutorial on how to present a case for your client in Court and do so with emphasis, clarity and zest.  My gosh, she was fantastic.

She poked not just a hole in the position of the attorney representing RSIC, Reno Sparks Indian Colony, she destroyed his position.  I love the way she basically told the judge that RSIC cut their own throat by previously, in another matter, submitting a map that specifically denoted all the areas in Nevada that RSIC had an interest in as being possible cultural sites of interest to RSIC and then she lowered the boom by pointing out that map was specific in its silence to the geography of Thacker Pass. 

How brilliant... she was like a bull fighter that had just gored the bull.  I could almost here the trumpets announcing the kill!!  She was truly magnificent... and then some.

Not only did she use information from RSIC to destroy their argument she also destroyed Mr. Falks reliance on his weak argument that the government agencies knew that the tribes wouldn't tell the government about specific information regarding a site in which they had interest.  Basically she said "So what!" that the tribe ( RSIC, Burns Tribe in Oregon or any other tribe ) weren't required to tell the government agencies the specific details as to why they were interested in a particular site, only that they were "interested" in it.  In other words the government recognized the position of Mr. Falk that the tribes didn't trust the government and did not want to reveal specific information about a site to the government but she went on to point out that the tribe only had to reveal that it had an interest in that place. She then stuck the sword in the bull, so to speak, and went on to vividly point out that in the circumstance of Thacker Pass none of the tribes, RSIC and Burns Tribe of Oregon included but not exclusive to those 2 tribes, notified BLM of their interest in Thacker Pass prior to June 2021.

  She had previously laid the groundwork for the argument that, in contrast to the weak arguments of Mr. Falk to the contrary, all the tribes had ample time and opportunity to make such arguments during the public comment period allowed by law in this particular proposed mining situation.

I believe she said that should the tribes by allowed to enter operant complaints after the US Forestry Service or BLM published time for public complaints to be filed then this would pose as a "Scam the Agencies" situation to be allowed in the future.  Again, I was in my car and could not take notes so what I now think was her "Scam the Agencies" reference may have been stated using different words, but essentially meaning the same thing.  I thought this was a very powerful argument on her part, that should any organization ( tribal or otherwise ) be allowed to scoff at the deadlines for public commentary on a published mining proposal then the very nature of future mining proposals in the U.S. would be at jeopardy. 

How did Mr. Falk answer that one?  He essentially tried to turn it upside down, and did so rather clumsily.. almost sophmorical, by saying that there would be future lithium mine proposals in the state of Nevada and that Judge Du's decision would have a possible enduring effect regarding the success or failure of those other Nevada lithium mining sites in the future.  My guess is that Will Falk and Max Wilbert want to be sure there is an Act II, Act III, Act IV and so on in their future regarding lithium mining in Nevada so that, like a bad pair of pennies, they can turn up with their tents and sleeping bags at some other "lucky" Navada proposed lithium mine to "Block the Mine" by legal or extra legal means.

The lady attorney attacking BLM seemed to be anxious just to get things over again and had a very halting, but fast delivery that was as if she just was in a hurry to get the words out and with an absence of passion or conviction.  I suspect she was either double parked or had a bladder problem, but the court reporter had to request her to "slow down" at one point, not a good omen.  

The lady attorney representing LAC was also very rapid in her delivery, but she had so much in her armory of weapons to present that she went from one meticulous and hard hitting point to the next in a smooth transition that left me with the feeling of being overwhelmed by a legal tornado.  I don't think there was any question as to which attorney today was the only one that would have received a "Gee Whiz, wish I had thought of that!" comment from Perry Mason.  Only the LAC attorney would have received that accolade.  She was fantastic!!

Mr. Falk, on the other hand deserves the hearfelt "Thanks" of every LAC share holder today. His rather mechanical and ultimately ineffective presentation placed him, to be kind, in the bottom half of all the attorneys presenting today, Plaintiff and Defendant attorneys alike, in regards to effectiveness.  His lack of flexibility in the Courtroom was to the detriment of his goal to represent his client in the best manner possible.  In contrast to the situation in the forests of Northern California with today's climate of multiple firey conflagrations, Mr. Falk was entirely deficient of any "spark" of legal exemplory performance. 

To paraphrase a political pundit from decades ago U.S. Presidential debates: "You are no Mr. Clarence Darrow and certainly not a Perry Mason, Mr. Falk".

I won't say it was "lackluster", but there was no shine, Mr. Falk.  No shine indeed.  As a LAC investor, Mr. Falk, you have my sincere thanks for your effort, or more correctly, your lack of effort in today's courtroom drama.

As for the LAC attorney:  Her "Scam the Agencies" remark will stay in my memory as if she were Admiral David Farragut in August of 1864 at the Battle of Mobile Bay loudly proclaiming:  "Damn the torpedoes. Full Speed Ahead!"

And those are my thoughts on the subject, Kate.  I can't wait to hear the opinions of others.  I hope everyone jumps in and recounts their own interpretation.  Pavel, Cal, WB DT, Greenie, Bassomatic, JDubski, ProsserP just to name a few.  How about it? 

Okiedo