Saturday, March 27, 2010

Is Nevada Att. General the reason for the Maglev Hold-up?


Found this article where Governor Gibbons sent a letter to the Attorney General for Nevada (Catherine Cortez Masto)  asking for responses to some recent legal issues including MULTIPLE questions regarding the MAGLEV project.   We will let you form your own conclusion as to why it takes 3 months to grease the squeaky wheel.

(FYI... Writ mandamus means: "we command")


The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
Attorney General of the State of Nevada
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
RE: Matters where legal action was requested
Dear Attorney General Masto:
This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated March 24, 2010 in response to my request for action on the recently passed healthcare legislation.
In your letter you state that your office will review the legislation and analyze its constitutionality.
I fully understand the demands placed on your deputies considering the recent necessary budget reductions and hiring freeze. However, I am deeply concerned that I have yet to receive an answer on those matters, not just the health care matter, but others in which I have requested your office take action.
On January 22. 2010, my office sent you a drafted proposed Petition for Writ of Mandamus to be filed on behalf of the Nevada Department of  Transportation (NDOT) requesting the $45 million earmarked in the Safe, Accountable. Flexible, Efficient Fransportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users for the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission for the Maglev project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada, as a segment of the high-speed Maglev system between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Anaheim, California. On January 28, 2010, the Director of NDOT and our office requested status from your office on this matter. The following day, two deputies were assigned to review this matter and make a determination as to whether your office would initiate the requested legal action and whether to hire outside counsel. On February 3, 2010, the NDOT Director expressed to your office the urgency of moving forward with legal action in order to acquire the $45 million for Nevadajobs. On February 11.2010, still having no action taken on the requested litigation, my Chief of Staff. Robin Reedy met with you personally to express the necessity of commencing a timely legal action. To this day. we do not have an answer as to whether you will initiate an action on behalf of the State and specifically NDOT, requesting the $45 million that has been earmarked for Nevada for years.
On another matter, in November of last year, my office sent you information on Earlhworks v. Department ofthe Interior, a pending lawsuit involving the Bureau of Land Management’s rules on location, recordation and maintenance of mining claims and sites and on mining claims under the general mining laws. On the Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources’ recommendation, we requested your office intervene in the lawsuit. On December 11, 2009, my General Counsel, Adriana Fralick inquired from your office about the status of our request and was advised that further review by your office was needed. Ms. Fralick followed-up on December 21, 2009 and was given the same response. On February 22, 2010, members of my senior staff and the Administrator for the Commission on Mineral Resources met with you about this matter. Our offices are still waiting for a final decision on whether you will represent Nevada on this important issue that impacts mining claims.
Considering the above, you can understand my frustration when you tell me that you need to vet the healthcare legislation issue for its constitutionality. I made it clear in late December of last year that if the healthcare bill passed, I would ask you to challenge its constitutionality. My office was told that you could not act until after President Obama signed the bill into law. Now I am told that your office will not make a determination until after the reconciliation process is completed. How tong will the people of Nevada have to wait? How long does a reasonable person wait? Any reasonable person experiencing such inaction from a private law firm would have fired that law firm already.
The healthcare legislation presents a question of federal power versus states’ power – this is a second-year law school analysis. I understand your concern about spending public funds for frivolous lawsuits. However, the lawsuit initiated by fourteen (14) other attorneys general is hardly frivolous. You also expressed a concern that the lawsuit may have been initiated for political reasons because some of those attorneys general are candidates for election. I am informed that some of those attorneys generals are indeed running for an election. However, many are running unopposed. Further, this is not a partisan endeavor as two of those attorneys general are democrats.
Pursuant to NRS 228.170, please consider this letter directive for you to make a final determination by close of business day on Monday, March 29, 2010 as to whether you will join in the ongoing healthcare lawsuit. I have been advised that the reconciliation process should be completed by that time.
Jim Gibbons
Keep Flying On the Ground
Maglev News