PERMFILE70902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BENDELOW LAW FIRM, r.c. Attorneys a[ Iaw Glenda Williams November 20, 2001 Page 2 well aware of the potential claim that could be made by Mr. Halsnes with respect to the right to mine the Property and wanted to protect against such a claim. Mr. Halsnes signed no such agreement and the litigation referred to previously in this Petition ensued. The litigation is a matter of public record in the District Court of Routt County, and as such, is a public record of parties with pending interests in the Property. The outcome of the litigation wiii determine which party has the right to mine the Properry. On Page 10, the Board will find Pazagraph 19.1 regarding "Owner Disclosures." In this Paragraph the Owner disclosed as "claims, demands or defects of title," among other items, " 2. Claim of Jarle Halsnes." Given this written provision, the Parties would be hazd pressed to deny that a claim regarding the Property could be made by Jarle Halsnes. These revelations regazding the knowledge by the Applicant of Mr. Halsnes' claim regarding the Property are evidence that Mr. Halsnes was a party of record entitled to notice of the Application. Applicant did not reveal this information to the Office. The Office did not designate Mr. Halsnes as a parry entitled to notice by Applicant of the Application based on MLRB Rule 1.6.2(1)(f) that states: "As soon as designated by the Office, [Applicant shall] mail a copy of the Notice provided for in Subparagraph 1.6.2(1)(d) to any other Owners of Record who might be affected by the proposed mining operation." Once again, Mr. Halsnes has slipped through the cracks with respect to his statutory rights. We respectfully request the Board to consider the information before it and grant Mr. Halsnes his request for Party Status. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, BENDELOW LAW FIRM, P.C. ~~~ Priscilla S.` Fulmer Cc: Jarle Halsnes Alan Keeffe