IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. Supreme Court No. OP

Similar documents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 16- MONTANA QUALITY EDUCATION COALITION,

Case 9:09-cv DWM-JCL Document 32 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Cause No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY. Defendant/Petitioner ( Defendant ), Jason Carter, by and through his undersigned

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 3:16-cv CWR-FKB Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4

Intervenor-Respondent. Contested Case Hearing in the above-identified consolidated cases (the "Consolidated Appeals").

Case 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 5:16-cv EJD Document 22 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 8

No. D-1-GN STEVE SMITH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT. v. OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS. Respondent-Contestee. 250th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. v. CASE NO DR001269XXXNB

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,

NOS and (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE WATER COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. TO: ALL PARTIES MAY RE: 41C-139 Montana WateT Court

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Petitioner: Timothy Markham v. Respondents: Greg Brophy and Dan Gibbs COURT USE ONLY. and

DOCKET NO. E-100, SUB 157. NOW COMES NC WARN Inc. ("NC WARN"), by and through undersigned

LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE DILLON CITY COURT, STATE OF MONTANA [Enacted April 15, 2015] PREFACE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Case 1:10-cv EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

A GUIDE TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE EX REL. SCIOTO DOWNS, INC., ET AL., JENNIFER L. BRUNNER, ET AL.,

Case 1:03-cv CAP Document 57 Filed 08/21/2003 Page FILEn 1 ~p of CLERM 10 OFFICE. IN TIDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LU'f

CAUSE NO. IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE CO., AGENT GLENN STRICKLAND DBA A-1 BONDING CO., VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC19- EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ) Civil No CIV. Defendants )

United States District Court

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC12-216

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

Snell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 257

On July 11, 2006, Petitioners filed their Verified Petition for Injunctive Relief and

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 105

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 39 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5. Paul M. Seby (admitted pro hac vice) Robert J. Walker (Wyo. Bar No.

Case 4:16-cv BMM Document 31 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 10 INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 243N

1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

January 9, 2008 SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND FACSIMILE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-CV ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

NO v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT CITY OF HOUSTON S PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOV?6 'M. CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No.: V S. JENNIFER -L:" BRUNER, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:03-cv CAP Document 34 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 1 of 14 ORIGINAL

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BAY CITY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-1013 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROHIBITION MELVIN BONNELL'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A RESPONDENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, ALABAMA. STATE OF ALABAMA, ) ) ) ) v. ) CASE NO. CC ) ) ) MICHAEL GREGORY HUBBARD, ) ) Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:13-cv NJB-DEK Document Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Motion Picture Association of America v. CrystalTech Web Hosting Inc. Doc. 769

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PARTIALLY-UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

May 13, In the Matter of PACIFICORP 2009 Renewable Energy Adjustment Clause Docket No. UE 200

Snell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC

BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF BEAL BANK, S.S.B., INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC BEAL BANK, S.S.B., INC.,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (5:15-cv D)

CASE NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 92 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 1:17-cr JRH-BKE Document 275 Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION

STATE OF TEXAS PETITION IN INTERVENTION. The State of Texas files this Petition in Intervention pursuant to

PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

MONTANA FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MADISON COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

V. CASE NO CA-00669

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by: JUDGE CONNELLY Taubman and Carparelli, JJ., concur. Announced: November 13, 2008

Transcription:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court No. OP-11-0258 KIP BARHAUGH; TIMOTHY BECHTOLD as natural parent and on behalf of S.B. and B.B.; RYAN BUSSE as natural parent and on behalf of S.B. and B.B.; GRADEN OEHLERICH HAHN and JAMUL F. HAHN as natural parents and on behalf of A.H. and A.H.; EMILY HOWELL; LARRY HOWELL as natural parent and on behalf of S.H.; MAYLINN SMITH as natural parent and on behalf of W.F. and M.F.; and JOHN THIEBES, Petitioners, vs. THE STATE OF MONTANA Respondent, MOTION TO INTERVENE Quentin M. Rhoades Robert Erickson SULLIVAN, TABARACCI & RHOADES 1821 South Ave. W., Third Floor Missoula, MT 59801 Telephone: (406) 721-9700 Facsimile: (406) 721-5838 For Intervenors Thomas J. Beers BEERS LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 7968 Missoula, MT 59807-7968 Telephone: (406) 728-4888 Facsimile: (406) 728-8445 For Petitioners Elizabeth Best BEST LAW OFFICES, P.C. P.O. Box 2114 Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 452-2933 Facsimile: (406) 452-9920 For Petitioners L. Randall Bishop JARUSSI & BISHOP P.O. Box 3353 Billings, MT 59103-3353 Telephone: (406) 245-7555 Facsimile: (406) 245-0840 For Petitioners

Amy Poehling Eddy BOTTOMLY EDDY & SANDLER 1230 Whitefish Stage Rd., Suite 100 Kalispell, MT 59901 Telephone: (406) 752-3303 Facsimile: (406) 755-6398 For Petitioners James A. Manley MANLEY LAW FIRM 201 4 th Ave. E. Polson, MT 59860 Telephone: (406) 883-6285 Facsimile: (406) 883-2861 For Petitioners Gregory S. Munro 3343 Hollis Street Missoula, MT 59801 Telephone: (406) 207-8267 Facsimile: (406) 243-2576 For Petitioners Steve Bullock MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL Department of Justice P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-14011 Telephone: (406) 444-2026 Facsimile: (406) 444-3549 For State of Montana

MOTION Intervenors, Climate Physics Institute, a Montana non-profit association; Western Montana Fish and Game Association, Inc., a Montana non-profit association; Representative Krayton Kerns; Senator Jason Priest; Representative Champ Edmunds; Representative Mike Miller; Representative Cary Smith; Representative Jerry O Neil; Representative James Knox; Representative Tom Burnett; Representative Keith Regier; Representative Dan Skattum; Representative Alan Hale; Representative Matt Rosendale; Representative Dan Salomon; Representative Lee Randall; Senator Greg Hinkle; Senator Joe Balyeat; Senator Verdell Jackson; Senator Ed Walker; Senator Chas Vincent; Senator Bruce Tutvedt; Representative Joe Reid; and Representative Mike Cuff, all Montana legislators, residents and citizens, as well those listed in Exhibit A, apply for leave to join this action because they each claim an interest relating to the issue which is the subject of the action; are so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede 2

their ability to protect that interest; and the applicants interest is inadequately represented by existing parties. Petitioners and the Respondent were asked for consent to the Motion to Intervene. Both respectfully declined. Pursuant to MONT. R. CIV. P. 24(c), Intervenors attach hereto a proposed Answer to the Petition for Original Jurisdiction. The Motion is supported by the following: BRIEF PROCEDURAL POSTURE In this case, Petitioners, certain Montana children of diverse backgrounds, have filed a petition for original jurisdiction in the Montana Supreme Court. They seek a judgment declaring that the State of Montana has an affirmative duty to enforce limitations on the levels of greenhouse gas emissions as necessary to mitigate human caused climate change. (Petition, 1.) Petitioners claim they seek relief specifically against Montana s legislative branch. (Id., 2.) The facts of the petition are presented as if a record has been made in a trial court, after complete pretrial proceedings and discovery, establishing an absence of any contested evidence. Of course, no such 3

proceedings have been had, and there is no consensus that human activity is effecting the world s historically-ever-changing climate. 1 http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ Still, Petitioners insist that [t]he questions of whether the atmosphere is part of the constitutionally protected public trust in Montana, and subsequently, whether the State of Montana has an affirmative obligation to protect that trust resource, including regulation of GHG emissions, are purely legal issues, appropriate for resolution in this proceeding. (Id., 5.) Petitioners ask the Court to impose on the public the monumental cost of curtailing human-caused carbon gas emissions in order to arrest changes in the global 1 http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/special-report-more-than-10 00-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-C laims--challenge-un-ipcc--gore; http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/09/prominent-climatologists-sk eptical-of.html http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_senate_minority_re port.pdf?sid=c018a076761574be8289e542f017ef0f&l_sid=27695&l_eid= &l_mid=2336201 http://climateclash.com/2011/02/04/h4-the-battle-of-the-scientists/ 4

atmosphere. Thus, Petitioners argue, since the political branches of State government those most directly responsive to the people have not been persuaded that such real-world costs are worth their speculative benefits, the judicial branch must intercede and impose the will of a minority. (Id., 8.) ARGUMENT A motion to intervene as a matter of right must satisfy each of the following factors: (1) be timely; (2) show an interest in the subject matter of the action; (3) show that the protection of the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action; and (4) show that the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party. Sportsmen for I-143 v. Montana Fifteenth Judicial Dist. Court, Sheridan County, 2002 MT 18, 7, 308 Mont. 189, 40 P.3d 400. Montana s rule is essentially identical to the federal rule which is interpreted liberally. Id. (Emphasis added). In this case, the motion is timely. Moreover, Intervenors have at least an equal interest in the subject matter of the case as do Petitioners. Petitioners claim standing because their personal and economic well-being is at stake. (Petition, 1.) So too are 5

Intervenors own interests, both as citizens and as legislators. If the Court declares the State has a duty to stop carbon gas emissions to protect the world s atmosphere, there will be devastating results for the State s economy. Intervenors livelihoods, as well as other environmental and stewardship values into which they invest their finite personal resources, will suffer. The reduction in economic activity due to carbon restrictions will also impair State tax revenue, and leave the political branches less able to husband the many other natural resources with which Montana is so abundantly blessed. Third, Intervenors interests will be impaired by a disposition of this action adverse to the State. If the Court grants the Petition, and holds that carbon gases must be regulated sufficiently to mitigate human caused climate change, then Intervenors interests in values other than the global climate will suffer. Moreover, Intervenors have an interest in the political compromises represented in the status quo. Petitioners seek to void these political compromises and effectively veto the will of the electorate, as expressed by the legislative and executive branches of State government. Before the Court decides whether to invalidate that compromise, or to substitute its own 6

judgment, it ought to allow the political actors and their constituents who participated in the compromise to appear and, at least, have some say in an action which seeks to destroy it. Finally, the State will not adequately represent Intervenors interests. Most of the facts claimed to be undisputed in the Petition are admissions made by the Executive Branch. (Petition, pp. 3-5, 7, 16.) Attorney General Bullock is himself an advocate for the very relief sought by Petitioners. During the political campaign, General Bullock used TerraPass to purchase offsets for carbon emissions from his campaign travel. 2 As his press release states: Steve Bullock understands the importance of a healthy environment is the proud new owner of a TerraPass. 3 The press release embellishes this: Getting to every county in a state as big as Montana means putting some miles in on the road, Bullock continued. The impact of all that driving is more than just sore eyes and an aching back. That s why I decided to offset my carbon emissions for this campaign by purchasing a TerraPass, Bullock said. This is a small gesture, but it s an important one. We all need to do our part to be good stewards of the natural 2 http://www.stevebullock.com/ pressarchives/ 3 Id. 7

heritage that is so much a part of who we are as Montanans, Bullock continued. Every day the Attorney General and his colleagues on the Land Board look at issues that impact our natural heritage. If I m elected, I ll work to protect that heritage for future generations, Bullock concluded. 4 Elsewhere, in a campaign white paper, General Bullock also solemnly promised to use the Attorney General s authority to protect and promote the constitutional promise of a clean and healthful environment. 5 In other words, if he abides by the promises he made in his campaign, General Bullock can only consent to the relief requested in the Petition. In view of the liberal policy in favor of intervention, Sportsmen for I-143, 7, Intervenors satisfy fully all four criteria for intervention as of right: they have filed timely; they have an interest; their interest is in jeopardy; and there is no party who has promised to fight for their rights. The Court should therefore allow them to intervene, to allow them to file the attached answer, and a reasonable amount of 4 Id. 5 http://www.stevebullock.com/white_papers/public_access.pdf 8

additional time sufficiently to gather evidence and marshal arguments in opposition to the thoroughly prepared Petition. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Intervenors ask that their motion be granted, and that they be allowed to appear and be heard in opposition to the pending Petition. Dated this 3 rd day of June, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, SULLIVAN, TABARACCI & RHOADES, P.C. By: Quentin M. Rhoades Robert Erickson For the Intervenors 9

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of MONT. R. APP. P. 11(4)(a) because, according to the word count function of WordPerfect X3, this brief contains 1,250 and no more than 138 per page, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by MONT. R. APP. P. 11(4)(c). 2. This brief complies with the typeface and the type style requirements of MONT. R. APP. P. 11(2) because this brief is prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using WordPerfect X3 Century Font type and a 14 point font size. DATED this 3 rd day of June, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, SULLIVAN, TABARACCI & RHOADES, P.C. By: Quentin M. Rhoades Robert Erickson For the Intervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10

I hereby certify that on the 3 rd day of June, 2011, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court; and that I have served true and accurate copies of same upon each attorney of record, and each party not represented by an attorney in the above-referenced action as follows: Steve Bullock MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL Department of Justice P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 Thomas J. Beers BEERS LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 7968 Missoula, MT 59807-7968 Elizabeth Best BEST LAW OFFICES, P.C. P.O. Box 2114 Great Falls, MT 59403 Amy Poehling Eddy BOTTOMLY EDDY & SANDLER 1230 Whitefish Stage Rd., Suite 100 Kalispell, MT 59901 James A. Manley MANLEY LAW FIRM 201 4 th Ave. E. Polson, MT 59860 Gregory S. Munro 3343 Hollis Street Missoula, MT 59801 L. Randall Bishop JARUSSI & BISHOP P.O. Box 3353 Billings, MT 59103-3353 Legal Assistant to Quentin M. Rhoades 11