REV01067 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., .. y,. PQabodu September 26, 2005 BT(/ EMP/RE CORPORAT/ON RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2005 Division a/Minerals and Geology 701 Market Street Suite 733 Sl. Louis, Missouri 6 31 01-1 8 26 314.342.3400 Ms. Janet Binns Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street -Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)866-4944 Re: BTU Empire Corporation (Empire) -Eagle Mines (Permit No. C-81-044), Status Report on Pending Litigation in BTU Empire Corp. v. Ray and Brad Bazker Dear Ms. Binns: In our last (August 2005) status report re: the pending litigation in BTU Empire Corp. v. Ray and Brad Barker, we noted that the Court had adopted the Federal Magistrate's recommendation that the case be remanded back to District Court in Craig, Colorado. With adoption of the motion to remand the case to District Court, the previously established schedule is voided and a new schedule will be established through a scheduling conference by the District Court. Our legal counsel has proceeded with contacts with the District Court and has requested a sheduling conference (conference call) to establish schedule and performance guidelines for the pending case. As of the date of this correspondence, the District Court has not responded re: the scheduling conference. Both BTU Empire and the Barkers are proceeding with collection of backgound information and scheduling of depositions in prepazation for future court hearings, however there have been no further actions or filings subsequent to our August status report in this case. 1) The Court has not formally responded to or acted on the April 4, 2005, recommendations of the Federal Magistrate relative to the November 24, 2004, and subsequent supplemental filings. Those recommendations (copy provided with the April Status Report) address the pending motions to; 1) Amend the Complaint to include Lisa Bazker, Glen Stinson, and the Colorado DNR -Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, as additional parties with affected interests; and 2) Intervene (by Glen Stinson, as a hunting lessee for the Barker property). 2) The Court has not responded to the following legal filings (copies provided with the May Status Report): Objections to Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate and Request for De Novo Determination by the Court (4/15/05) Supplemental Filing in Support of Objections to Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate (4/15/05) Defendant's Notice of Change of Fact (4/18/05) Agreement to Set Aside and Declaze Void Ab Initio That Certain Recreational Lease Ageement (Lease w/DNR-Division of Pazks and Outdoor Recreation) Dated February 3, 2004 (4/22/05, effective 2/3/04) 3) In May, BTU Empire's attorney prepazed and submitted a response to the Barker objections withdrawing the request to add the DNR-Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation as a party to the suit; reiterating that Lisa Barker and Glen Stinson should properly be included as parties to the suit, given their affected interests; and reiterating the request and contention that the suit should be remanded back to District Court, consistent with the U.S. Magistrate's recommendations.