Laserfiche WebLink
Having reviewed the motion, and all briefing therein,the file in this case, and sufficiently <br /> being advised in the premises, the Court GRANTS the motion on the bases recited 'n <br /> motion, <br /> of on, and ORDERS as follows: h� <br /> The Court's June 8, 2017, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and O ended to <br /> state: J <br /> Findings of Fact(As Amended) <br /> V <br /> The Defendants' C.R.C.P. 59 Motion is not based on a ested findings of fact, but <br /> challenges the findings of law that are based on witness clairr . As such, the Court makes no <br /> I <br /> "findings of fact" concerning the meaning of federal* law, the construction of federal or <br /> state statutes, or the relative credibility of Oases—expert or otherwise—regarding their <br /> interpretations of federal or state law mea <br /> Con*-Qs of Law(As Amended) <br /> Based on undisputed in accordance with the Plan of Operations for the White <br /> Banks Claims, Robert C n resumed work in May 2005 on the White Banks Claims, which <br /> had been deeme oned by the BLM. During that time, Julie and Donald Skinner, as <br /> predecessor aintiff Snowmass Mining Co., LLC, did not meet legal requirements for <br /> establis y valid claim to the White Banks Claims, for at least four independent reasons. <br /> First, they failed to make any discovery on the White Banks Claims, as required under <br /> applicable state and federal law, prior to Robert Congdon relocating the White Banks Claims and <br /> filing his location certificates August 5, 2005. Indeed, they have never made an independent <br /> discovery on the claims. Nor did they post any notice of a discovery, which by law is different <br /> than a location monument, prior to Congdon's relocation of the White Banks Claims. Instead <br /> 2 <br />