© 2024 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana

NOTE:  We are not attorneys, and the information in this article is not intended to give legal advice to anyone.  As an objector to the Flathead Compact, only you can decide what pathway you must follow to protect your specific interests and rights.

For a good while now, we’ve made note of the fact that the censorship taking place on the internet is making it extremely difficult to find information that we are seeking.  Additionally it is often quite difficult to wade through very long legal articles and documents when seeking answers to questions about the court processes and other matters pertaining to the Flathead Water Compact.  

With that in mind, we want to put in front of objectors some questions and answers pertaining to our situation that were asked in brave search engjne. Please note that the responses to the questions below come from artificial intelligence.  Having said that, we think they are succinct, and comport very closely with our thinking and other research we’ve come across over the years concerning the flaws in this water compact and compacting process.  

We hope this information is self explanatory for you and that it helps you think through your presentation of your issues the Flathead Compact that were framed in your objection.

Issues of law that don’t require the court to make findings of fact

The distinction between issues of law and issues of fact is crucial in legal proceedings. Issues of law are those that require the court to apply legal principles and rules to the facts of the case, whereas issues of fact are those that require the court to determine the truth or falsehood of certain events or circumstances. In some cases, issues of law may not require the court to make findings of fact, as the legal principles and rules can be applied directly to the case without the need for factual determinations.

Examples of Issues of Law that Don’t Require Findings of Fact

  • Interpretation of Statutes: When a court is required to interpret a statute, it is an issue of law that does not require findings of fact. The court must apply the legal principles and rules of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of the statute, without needing to make findings of fact.
  • Construction of Contracts: When a court is required to construe a contract, it is an issue of law that does not require findings of fact. The court must apply the legal principles and rules of contract construction to determine the meaning of the contract, without needing to make findings of fact.
  • Application of Legal Principles: When a court is required to apply a legal principle or doctrine to a case, it is an issue of law that does not require findings of fact. The court must apply the legal principle or doctrine to the facts of the case, without needing to make findings of fact.
  • Determination of Jurisdiction: When a court is required to determine its jurisdiction over a case, it is an issue of law that does not require findings of fact. The court must apply the legal principles and rules of jurisdiction to determine whether it has the authority to hear the case, without needing to make findings of fact.

In summary, issues of law that don’t require the court to make findings of fact are those that involve the application of legal principles and rules to the facts of the case, without the need for factual determinations. These issues are typically resolved through the application of legal doctrine and principles, rather than through the determination of factual truth or falsehood.

What are the key factors that can lead to a government-to-government consent decree being successfully challenged in court?

A government-to-government consent decree is a complex agreement that can have significant implications for the parties involved. The following factors can contribute to a consent decree being successfully challenged in court:

  • Overly Broad Scope: If the decree is too broad or vague, it may be challenged as an unconstitutional exercise of federal power or as a violation of state sovereignty.
  • Lack of Oversight Mechanisms: If the decree lacks sufficient oversight mechanisms, it may be challenged as ineffective or inadequate in achieving its intended goals.
  • Unreasonable Burdens: If the decree places unreasonable burdens on one or both parties, it may be challenged as an unconstitutional taking or a violation of due process.
  • Lack of Transparency: If the decree is not transparent in its terms or implementation, it may be challenged as opaque or secretive.
  • Unfair or Unbalanced Terms: If the decree contains unfair or unbalanced terms, it may be challenged as a violation of due process or equal protection.
  • Failure to Address Third-Party Interests: If the decree fails to adequately address the interests of third parties, it may be challenged as a violation of their rights or interests.
  • Lack of Accountability: If the decree lacks mechanisms for accountability, it may be challenged as ineffective or unenforceable.
  • Unreasonable Timeframes: If the decree sets unreasonable timeframes for implementation or compliance, it may be challenged as an unconstitutional taking or a violation of due process.

These factors can contribute to a government-to-government consent decree being successfully challenged in court, highlighting the importance of careful consideration and negotiation in the drafting and implementation of such agreements.

What are some specific examples of FRAUD or mistake that can lead to a consent decree being set aside?

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentations: A consent decree can be set aside if one party made fraudulent misrepresentations to the court or the other party. This can include false statements, concealment of material facts, or the presentation of forged documents.
  • Mistakes in the Consent Decree: A consent decree can be set aside if it was based on a mistake, such as a clerical error, arithmetical error, or an incorrect understanding of the law or facts.
  • Fraudulent Concealment of Material Facts: A consent decree can be set aside if one party concealed material facts from the court or the other party, and the concealment was fraudulent.
  • Misrepresentation of Intentions: A consent decree can be set aside if one party misrepresented their intentions or plans to the court or the other party, and the misrepresentation was fraudulent.
  • Error in the Consent Decree’s Terms: A consent decree can be set aside if it contains an error in its terms, such as a mistake in the calculation of damages or the specification of a deadline.
  • Fraudulent Misuse of the Consent Decree: A consent decree can be set aside if one party fraudulently misused the decree to achieve an unintended consequence, such as using the decree to evade a legal obligation or to gain an unfair advantage.

What are some specific examples of OVERREACHING that can lead to a consent decree being set aside?

  • Fraudulent representations: If a party makes false or misleading statements to induce the other party to agree to the consent decree, it may be set aside.
  • Coercive conduct: If a party uses undue influence, threats, or intimidation to obtain the other party’s consent, the decree may be set aside.

Unconscionable Conduct

  • Unfair or oppressive terms: If the consent decree contains terms that are grossly unfair or oppressive, it may be set aside.
  • Lack of informed consent: If one party did not fully understand the terms of the consent decree due to a lack of legal representation or other factors, it may be set aside.

Mistake or Misunderstanding

  • Misunderstanding of the terms: If a party does not fully understand the terms of the consent decree, it may be set aside.
  • Mistake in signing: If a party signs the consent decree without fully understanding its implications, it may be set aside.

Other Examples

  • Duress: If a party is forced to agree to the consent decree due to economic or other pressures, it may be set aside.
  • Lack of authority: If a party does not have the authority to enter into the consent decree, it may be set aside.

These examples illustrate situations where a consent decree may be set aside due to overreaching or unfair conduct.

What are some specific examples pertaining to fairness and adequacy that can lead to a consent decree being set aside?

  • Lack of transparency: If the consent decree is not transparent about the terms and conditions, it may be deemed unfair and inadequate, leading to a court’s decision to set it aside.
  • Unreasonable expectations: If the consent decree sets unrealistic or unachievable goals, it may be considered unfair and inadequate, as it may not be feasible for the parties involved to comply.
  • Inequitable distribution of benefits: If the consent decree does not provide a fair and equitable distribution of benefits or resources, it may be deemed unfair and inadequate.

Adequacy

  • Insufficient remedies: If the consent decree does not provide adequate remedies for the harm caused, it may be deemed inadequate and set aside.
  • Inadequate monitoring and enforcement: If the consent decree lacks a clear plan for monitoring and enforcing compliance, it may be deemed inadequate and set aside.
  • Lack of accountability: If the consent decree does not hold parties accountable for non-compliance, it may be deemed inadequate and set aside.

Examples

  • In the case of Rikers Island, the consent decree was set aside due to concerns over the lack of transparency and accountability in the implementation of the agreement.
  • In another case, a consent decree was set aside due to the lack of adequate remedies for the harm caused by the defendant’s actions.
  • In a third case, a consent decree was set aside due to the lack of clear guidelines for monitoring and enforcing compliance.

Note: These examples are based on the provided search results and are not exhaustive.