Free Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:99-cv-04451-ECH

Document 191-2

Filed 04/25/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

JOHN H. BANKS, ET AL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Docket No.:

99-4451L

Chambers, Suite 617 National Courts Building 717 Madison Place NW Washington, D.C. Friday, January 19, 2007 The parties met, pursuant to notice of the Court, at 2:00 p.m. BEFORE: HONORABLE EMILY C. HEWITT Judge (Via Telephone)

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: JOHN EHRET, Esquire 20860 Greenwood Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois (708) 748-8975 Also for the Plaintiff: DREW MARROCCO, Esquire Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Suite 600, East Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 408-6400

60461

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Exhibit 1

Case 1:99-cv-04451-ECH

Document 191-2

Filed 04/25/2007

Page 2 of 3

2 APPEARANCES: (Cont'd)

Also for the Plaintiff: EUGENE FRETT, Esquire Sperling & Slater, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 641-3200 For the Defendant: TERRY PETRIE, Esquire HEIDE HERRMANN, Esquire U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division 1961 Stout Street, Eighth Floor Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-1369 For the Army Corps of Engineers: GARY SEGREST, Esquire

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Case 1:99-cv-04451-ECH

Document 191-2

Filed 04/25/2007

Page 3 of 3

70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the percipient witnesses and expert witnesses pointing to these formulas, pointing to the evidence, pointing to the damage that's caused, and helping the Court understand so that I can write in as coherent a fashion as possible an explanation of why I think or do not think that this set of facts and circumstances yields a takings result for the Plaintiff or does not do so under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. I want to say a couple of other things about the scope of this trial. The scope of the trial

should leave the Court with a general view, assuming some taking, a general view about the taking, the nature of that taking, across the entire length of the properties that are owned by the individual plaintiffs. We do not want to get into a situation in which there is a judgment on liability, which is the purpose of this trial, and then that opinion is written. Six months down the road, we get into a

situation where we are now speaking about individual property owned by the Horvath Trust and comes some discussion about well, this is special because actually the whole beach works differently in front of Horvath. We don't want to be in that situation. I mean, it doesn't mean we wouldn't, but Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888