Laserfiche WebLink
36 <br />1 that the facts did not substantiate the violation. <br />2 We argued otherwise, obviously. <br />3 In January the Tatums entered -- asked <br />4 that they be entered as parties to the proceeding. <br />5 Since then we've been working our way towards the <br />6 March 22 hearing that's since been withdrawn from <br />7 the agenda. Depositions were scheduled. <br />8 Obviously, there have been numerous conversations <br />9 between the attorneys trying to iron out procedures <br />10 and so on. <br />11 Then on March 8th the Tatums write the <br />12 division a letter indicating in that letter that <br />13 they no longer want to pursue this citizen's <br />14 complaint. They want to take this matter straight <br />15 to district court, which we believe is their right <br />16 under the coal statute, and as a result of that, <br />17 they also asked that we vacate the notice of <br />18 violation, and they indicated that they were there <br />19 and then withdrawing their citizen's complaint. <br />20 Now very simply, the legal arguing <br />21 aside, we looked at this, I think, very <br />22 pragmatically. We said -- we reacted to a <br />23 citizen's complaint. Most of our evidence came <br />24 with the citizen's complaint. The citizen is now <br />25 withdrawing their complaint. They're asking that <br />