Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> 1 passes. 1 identified to date, particularly given the light and <br /> 2 MR. ROBERTS: Finally, the third 2 the background and the fact that Snowcap has a <br /> 3 motion filed by the objector is a request for leave 3 retained property right to complete any necessary <br /> 4 to file a motion to strike and a motion to strike 4 reclamation as defined by its permit as defined by <br /> 5 false representation of the record filed by 5 this Board on that property. <br /> 6 Mr. Beckwith. 6 So actions taken pursuant to the <br /> 7 Mr. Beckwith. 7 permit as approved cannot be considered to be <br /> 8 MR. BECKWITH: Yes. Under the 8 actionable or otherwise compensable to <br /> 9 prehearing order, which has not yet been presented, 9 Mr. Fontanari. <br /> 10 all motions were due on the 24th of May -- excuse 10 So that is the basis of those <br /> 11 me -- April, and, therefore, I have to request 11 statements. We were left to guess as to the basis <br /> 12 leave. 12 of Fontanari's assertion that it was required <br /> 13 The underlying motion derives fron a 13 cmpensation from Snowcap to Fontanari with the <br /> 14 statement made by Mr. Justus in his response to my 14 completion of the proposed repair and reclamation <br /> 15 motion in limine and his response to my motion to 15 process. <br /> 16 dismiss that I had stated that Snowcap Coal was 16 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Schultz, anything <br /> 17 subject to condemnation or inverse condemnation 17 to add? <br /> 18 under Article 2, section 15. 16 MR. SCHOTLZ: I do not have anything <br /> 19 I never made those statements, as I 19 to had. I, frankly, read these motions several <br /> 20 showed in my motion. I quoted the specific and I 20 times and had a difficult time figuring what was <br /> 21 even provided you the specific pages that Mr. Justus 21 being asked. So I have nothing further. <br /> 22 has made the reference to, and I have never made 22 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. <br /> 23 such a statement. 23 MR. SINGLETARY: Any questions from <br /> 24 My statement was that Article 2, 24 the Board? <br /> 25 section 15 has two types of remedies, which is 25 MR. ROBERTS: Point out a procedural <br /> 17 19 <br /> 1 unusual for a state constitution. It is either a 1 spin on this motion is, it's two parts. It's a <br /> 2 taking or a damage. And since 1889, the Colorado 2 request for leave to file the motion and the motion. <br /> 3 Supreme Court has interpreted damage to mean 3 That's a typical way for attorneys to file docents <br /> 4 constitutional trespass by a public entity. 4 out beyond the deadline. <br /> 5 Snowcap is not a public entity. It's 5 In this case, motions were due to be <br /> 6 a private entity, and I have never asserted that 6 filed by April 24, which during the prehearing <br /> 7 Snowcap was in any way subject to condemnation or 7 conference we extended from the original date. So <br /> 8 inverse condemnation claims by Mr. Fontanari. 8 Mr. Beckwith's motion was filed more than two weeks <br /> 9 Therefore, I ask that the record be 9 beyond that date. <br /> 10 corrected so that no one on this board believes that 10 So the first step for the Board to <br /> 11 I'm running around making unsubstantiated financial 11 consider is whether it wants to allow Mr. Beckwith <br /> 12 claims against Mr. Justus's client. That's what 12 to have filed this motion that he's filed. If we <br /> 13 I've asked. 13 deny that request, we're done with this motion. You <br /> 14 MR. SINGLETARY: Mr. Justus. 14 can disregard the rest of it. <br /> 15 MR. JUSTUS: I'd like to respond on 15 MR. SINGLETARY: Any discussion with <br /> 16 behalf of Snowcap. Mr. Fontanari, through his 16 the Board? Is there a motion? <br /> 17 counsel, repeatedly made assertions that Snowcap is 17 MR. ROBERTS: You need a motion on <br /> 18 required to compensate Mr. Fontanari for the loss of 18 the request for leave to file the motion to <br /> 19 basaltic minerals, et cetera. 19 strike. <br /> 20 However, no law has been stated for 120 MS. VAN NOORD: I'm kind of with <br /> 21 the purpose. The only law cited in any of the 21 Mr. Schultz on this one. I'm having a hard time <br /> 22 submissions by Mr. Beckwith on behalf of 22 quite understanding the intent of this and whether <br /> 23 Mr. Fontanari with respect to compensation is 23 the statements are even prejudicial or even relevant <br /> 24 Article 2 of the constitution. 24 to what we're looking at here today. <br /> 25 That is the only basis he's 25 So I make a motion that we deny the <br /> 18 20 <br />