Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSION <br />Snowcap cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Snowcap openly and freely admits <br />in its Response that Sec. 24-4-105 applies to the hearing on the Proposed Decision. That being <br />so, then the Board has inherent authority (if not an implied duty) to schedule the hearing with <br />sufficient pre -hearing time to allow the parties to conduct discovery, subpoena requests, and <br />resolution of objections to such subpoena requests. As demonstrated here (as well as in its <br />Request), 24-4-105 conflicts with Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii), and the Board has been involuntarily <br />forced to determine which rule to follow. By scheduling the hearing on June 28, 207, the Board <br />complies with the statute: and, under C.R.S. 24-4-103(8) the statute prevails over a rule in <br />conflict with the statute. <br />On the other hand, Snowcap asserts the Rule 2.08.4 required the hearing on the "next <br />business meeting following the issuance of the Proposed Decision": which would have been <br />February 23, 2017. That being so, the deadline under the Rule has passed without objection by <br />Snowcap: thereby rendering Snowcap's objection in its Response nugatory, nullified, forfeited <br />and waived. <br />Clearly, the governing law overrules Snowcap's objections and claims, and supports <br />Fontanari's request for clarification. <br />WHEREFORE, AND FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Rudy and Carol Fontanari, <br />Trustees of the Fontanari Family Revocable Trust pray for an Order of the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board clarifying the pre -hearing procedures and the scope of review at hearing as <br />sought by Fontanari in its Request for Clarification and, further, suspending setting the hearing <br />until the issuance by the Board of the requested clarifications, together such other and further <br />relief as this Board deems just and proper in the circumstances. <br />5 <br />