On Tuesday, August 7, Wild Idaho Rising Tide (WIRT) filed pro se (without attorney representation again) a request for an extension of at least 14 days to file an amended notice of appeal of the Idaho Department of Lands’ (IDL) June 21 final order approving an encroachment permit for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway’s (BNSF) Sandpoint Junction Connector application to build two temporary work spans and two permanent railroad bridges in Lake Pend Oreille and Sand Creek. The extension request also covers filing a petition for judicial review by the Idaho First District Court in Bonner County, of the entire, almost 1000-page, public record culminating in the state permit decision, based on the preliminary and final orders of Idaho Board of Land Commissioners hearing officer Chris Bromley and IDL director David Groeschl, the lawsuit defendants.
As one of 21 testifiers who spoke against the BNSF expansion project, besides ten who supported it, at the IDL/Idaho Land Board, administrative hearings on May 23, 2018, in Ponderay and Sandpoint, Helen Yost filed the original notice of appeal and request for judicial review, and posted a $500 bond on behalf of WIRT on July 20, within 30 days of Director Groeschl’s final order, as prompted by its concluding legal notification. Four additional testifiers opposing rail bridge construction have since expressed interest in tentatively joining the appeal as plaintiffs.
But in a July 25 notice of proposed case dismissal and an order striking the notice of appeal on technical grounds, District Judge Barbara Buchanan addresses “several problems with this notice of appeal.” She explains that the document “does not contain all of the information required by…Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 84,” including more precise statements about state agency action titles, dates, records, hearings, oral presentations, and transcripts and appeal notification of defendants. Thus, “it is not clear exactly which decision…that this Court is being asked to review.” Judge Buchanan also indicates that, “under Idaho law, ‘a business entity … must be represented by a licensed attorney before an administrative body or a judicial body,’” and that any court documents from gratefully unincorporated, activist collective WIRT “must be filed by an attorney authorized to practice law in Idaho.”
While “diligently searching for the assistance and legal services of an attorney” within our Northwest network, to “obtain obviously required counsel for this matter,” WIRT hand-delivered the extension request within the 14 days provided to respond to Judge Buchanan’s notice of proposed case dismissal and order striking the notice of appeal. Noting that “preparation of the detailed, amended appeal will require substantial time among [an attorney’s] current caseload and other court deadlines, especially considering the complex and technical nature of some of the record documents,…we acknowledge and plan to remedy the problems resulting from pro se filing of the initial notice of appeal.” Voicing appreciation and respect for attorneys’ “knowledge of Idaho legal proceedings, relevant laws, and court document drafting requirements,” we confirm that “an extension of time granted by the District Court…would offer opportunities to share information with legal counsel and to clarify…which proceedings, hearings, and decisions we are asking the Court to review.”