Laserfiche WebLink
objection letter, these Counterclaim Defendants demanded that the Board deny approval of PR- <br />06. On a later date, Frank Morgan filed a similar objection letter demanding the same action, <br />however neither Frank nor Mary Lou Morgan took the steps required to become parties to the <br />appeal of PR -06. <br />66. Ms. Turner's and Michael Morgan's objection letter was not restricted to matters <br />relevant to PR -06, but rather encompassed the entire permit history of the mine as it related to <br />the Morgan property, including matters that were dealt with in prior permits that had already <br />been approved by the Board, such as PR -05, RN -05, and TR -57. As with their prior objection <br />letters, this document accused WFC of lying to government regulators, of attempting to "ruin" <br />the lives of landowners in Montrose County, and making other false and unsupported statements. <br />67. On November 17, 2010, the Board held a hearing concerning PR -06. At the <br />conclusion of the hearing, the Board unanimously voted to approve PR -06. In its written Order, <br />issued December 8, 2010 the Board stated that Ms. Turner and Michael Morgan had presented <br />"no evidence" that was relevant to PR -06 at the hearing. <br />68. On January 11, 2011, Ms. Turner filed a third citizen complaint with OSM. This <br />complaint alleged that WFC had violated the terms of its permit by removing topsoil while the <br />soil was saturated, thus damaging its physical and chemical properties (the "Third Citizen <br />Complaint "). The complaint letter alleged that topsoil stripping had taken place under 18 inches <br />of snow, during a rainstorm, when soils were saturated with water. These operations were <br />alleged to have taken place on December 23, 2010. <br />69. In fact, based on WFC's investigation and the Division's inspection, less than half <br />an inch of precipitation had fallen on the Property during the entire month of December <br />(unusually dry for a December month in the area), and only a few hundredths of an inch on the <br />date in question. Contemporaneous photographs of WFC's operations show that the soil, far <br />from being saturated, was dry. <br />70. On January 25, 2011, the Division wrote to OSM in response to the TDN stating <br />that based on their inspection of the site and meteorological records there was no evidence <br />supporting the allegations of Ms. Turner's Third Citizen Complaint. <br />71. The factual allegations of the Third Citizen Complaint were made with <br />knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. <br />72. Ms. Turner's Third Citizen Complaint was submitted either within or was closely <br />followed by the submittal of another document that, like her previous objection letters and <br />citizen complaints, attempted to encompass the entire 12 -year permit history, including matters <br />that had already been reviewed and definitively ruled upon by both the Division and OSM. <br />73. OSM treated the remainder of her letter, or the separate document, as a fourth <br />citizen complaint (the "Fourth Citizen Complaint "). OSM discerned 13 separate alleged <br />violations in the text of the complaint letter, which repeated the allegations of Ms. Turner's first <br />citizen complaint (which had already been denied by both the Division and OSM) to the effect <br />that WFC had lied to the government about the initial prime farmlands negative determination in <br />{00026036.1 } 9 <br />