My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11204
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:36 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:18:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981048
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
2/23/1984
Doc Name
MEMO-TRINIDAD BASIN
From
DEPT OF LAW
To
MLRD
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~. ~ • • <br />D. h~onte Pascoe, Esq. <br />Gerald D. Sjaastad, Esq. <br />February 2, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br />theory. First, such an argument would only apply to the N~ of <br />the S~ of Section 15, and would not justify defendants' past, <br />present or future mining and removal of coal from other areas. <br />Second, Mr. riills himself has conceded under oath that no min- <br />ing was underway in Section 15 in September of 1982 when the <br />lease in question expired. Indeed, Mr. Mills acknowledges that <br />mining did not commence in Section 15 until December of 1982 at <br />the earliest. It is, therefore, not legally possible to argue <br />that the lease was extended as a result of holding over. <br />Rather, it would be necesary to argue that the lease was some- <br />how revived by resumption of operations in December of 1982, <br />four months after it had expired by its own terms. There is no <br />legal authority to support such an argument. Finally, all wit- <br />nesses agree that Victor-American was never specifically <br />advised that royalty payments it received were attributable to <br />coal from Section 15 and, in fact, all witnesses have agreed <br />that there was no way for Victor-American to independently make <br />such a determination. <br />Whatever arguments might have been advanced in an effort <br />to characterize defendants' past trespass as unintentional are, <br />therefore, no longer available to explain continued mining from <br />Section 15. Mr. Mills and Mr. Wiggins now have access to legal <br />aavice from qualified Colorado counsel who, in turn, now have <br />access to sufficient facts to advise defendants that there <br />exists no legal authority to support continued mining from Sec- <br />tion 15. As a result, we regard such continued mining as <br />intentional trespass for which the measure of damages in <br />Colorado is the fair market value of all coal removed, without <br />deduction of mining costs or other credits. It is our <br />intention to proceed to recover such damages even if all coal <br />in Section 15 has been removed prior to trial. Furthermore, if <br />mining from Section 15 does not immediately cease, we intend to <br />use this letter as evidence in the damages portion of our case <br />to further demonstrate defendants' willful disregard for our <br />client's legitimate property rights. <br />Very truly yours, <br />~~G~~,..."K <br />" B itton iv"hite, <br />of HOLLAND b HA <br />BWjr:dpm <br />cc: Mr. Gerard Rem <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.