Laserfiche WebLink
BENDELOW LAW FIRM, p.c. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Glenda Williams <br />November 19, 2001 <br />Page 4 <br />As further evidence of More's failure to disclose information critical to this case, MLRB Rule <br />1.6.2(1)(e) dictates that an "applicant shall mail or personally serve a copy of the notice ... immediately <br />after the first publication [which was on September 16, 2001] to: <br />(i) all owners of record of surface and mineral rights to the affected land; and <br />(ii) all owners of record of surface lands that are within 200 feet of the boundary of the <br />affected land. <br />This means that if More, or More's counsel, claims not to have had knowledge of the detailed 75-page <br />Reclamation Permit Application filed on More's own land (a preposterous proposition), by statute More <br />had to be given written notice of the Reclamation Permit Application on or about September lb,`s and <br />should have disclosed the same to Mr. Halsnes pursuant to the statutory rules of disclosure. No such <br />notice has been provided to Mr. Halsnes by More. After inquiry was made to an acquaintance and <br />neighbor of Mr. Halsnes, Jace Romick, who owns property within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected <br />land [(ii) above] and who was listed in the Reclamation Permit Application as being so located, Mr. <br />Halsnes' wife, Leigh Halsnes, was told by Jace Romick that he has never received the required notice of <br />the Reclamation Permit Application (Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Leigh Halsnes). Such information would have <br />been shared with Mr. Halsnes in time for Mr. Halsnes to file his objection. <br />Finally, MLRB Rule 1.6.2(1)(f) states that within one week after the filing of a Reclamation Permit <br />Application, notice must be given "to any other Owners of Record who might be affected by the proposed <br />mining operation" as designated by the Office. The purpose of this Rule is to ensure that all affected <br />parries have knowledge of the application and opportunity to be heard. Inherent in this Rule is a duty to <br />disclese knowledge of interested parties to the Office. By virtue of the existence of this law suit, Mr. <br />Halsnes should have been notified in time to object to the Reclamation Permit Application to protect his <br />interest pending the ongoing litigation. More apparently looked the other way when it came to providing <br />notice to other affected parties. It further appears that, despite the efforts of Mr. Halsnes' counsel in <br />meeting with the Division in May to deliver documentation to establish Mr. Halsnes interest as a party in <br />any application filed on the Property, the Office failed to designate Mr. Halsnes as a party who might be <br />affected by the proposed mining operation entitled to notice. <br />Conclusion <br />Based on the forgoing, in the interest of righting the series of injustices, systems failures, notice <br />violations and disclosure requirements discussed above, we respectfully request that Mr. Halsnes be <br />granted party status in the matter of the Reclamation Permit Application, and that he be allowed to file his <br />objection thereto. Please do not hesitate to call with any additional information you may request, or if we <br />may be of assistance in any other way in this matter. <br />