ENFORCE20209

• Permit No: M2001001
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 12/11/2003
• Doc Name: Motion to revise Pre-hearing Order
• From: Mary E. Geiger
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DEC-11-63 11:56 FROM-Colorado Division of Minerals & Gaolasr [phone] T-403 P.005/006 F-034
Dec~ll, 2003 11~1~AM Caloia HDUDt Hamilton PC No~B984 P. 4
' Before tic Mined Lacd Reclamation'Boatd
Line Camp Pit, File No. M-2001-001
Boynton's Motion for Revisivas to Proposed
Pro-Hearing Order
Page 3 of 4
that the DMG intends to present all of its evidence within its rebuttal period, and there is
no opportunity forcross-examination of witnesses doting that time. This occurred during
the original Hearing on Four States' application is May 2001, and Ms. Boynton argues it
is depth in her Opening Brief and Reply Brief in Case No. O1CV3425 that such
occttrrenee was a violation of the Colorado APA. Ms. Boynton should be giva- the
opportunity to cross-examine each of the DMG's witnesses.
9. The MLRB has the power. at the Fonmal Hearing to "dispose of motions to
intervene, procedural requests, ox similar matters." C.R.S. § 24-4-105(4). Thus, the
MLRB has jurisdiction to rule an this Motion.
10. Ms. Boynton is mindful of the time restraints on these proceedings and the fact
that the MRLB is allowing appr'oxirntately 9 hours for the Hearing on December 16, 2003,
to occur. Therefore, her requests as sat forth above are not intended W enlarge the
amount of time allocated far the Hearing.
WHEREFORE, Marilyn Boynton respectfully requests that the Proposed Pre•
Heating Order be revised to reflect the fallowing procedure at the Sfeat-iag on before the
MLRB on December 16, 2003;
1. The DMG be precluded from presenting evidence as it is not a party to these
proceedings; or in the alternative:
2. Past VT, Paragraph 5 of the Proposed Order should he changed to read that the
Division will have 70 minutes to make its presentation and Paragraph 9 should be
changed to Teal that the Division has 35 minutes to make a rebuttal statement; and
3. Part Vf, Paragrapis S and 9 of tie Proposed Order should be reversed to reflect
that Ms. Boynton has the opportunity for rebuttal after the DMG's opportunity for
rebuttal;, and
4. Ms. Boynton must be given a full and fair opportunity to anss-examine each of
the DMG's witnesses; and
S. The time limits for Ms. Bvynton's cross-examinations shall not invlude time spent
arguing by the Applicant, its representatives or attorneys, or MLRB.
Dated this $`° day of Aecesuber, 2003.
CAI.OTA, ldOUPT & HAMILTON, k.C,
At~raeys £ox Objector Matiiya $oynton
Mary Elizab rlt Geiger, Esq., 331
B01'NTON-Motion fax Revisions m Pre•Hesdag Ordu