_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 ‎(11)‎

• Permit No: M1978352
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: AFFIDAVIT OF MARK A HEIFNER 79-CV-1633
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

j Chester M. Goldman. As a partner in a Limited Partnership
2 which Brush Creek is, Brush Creek is a limited partnership,
3 it' s not a corporation. What we have in the way of initiat-
4 ing this objection is a letter from Mr. Stemwedel and you
5 will note at the bottom of that letter is a carbon copy of
6 the letter going to Chester M. Goldman as Trustee of the
7 Eagle River Trust. I guess what my point is is that even
8 though technically there may have been different entities
9 involved here, Mr. Nottingham was operating under the good
10 faith assumption that the adjoining landowner remained the
11 same. Even if the adjoining landowner changed, notice was
12 adequate in fact, because notice went to the Brush Creek
13 Company, a partner in which was Chester M. Goldman and that
14 same Chester M. Goldman was a Trustee in the Eagle River
15 Trust. What we have, we have a multiplicity of entities, but
16 cutting through and beneath those entities we have the same
17 individuals. Another very important point I think is that at
18 the same time, Mr. Stemwedel represented not only the Eagle
19 River Trust, because he clearly represented them as of Feb-
20 ruary 16, 1979, when this objection was made, Mr. Stemwedel
21 also represented the Brush River Company so we have a connec-
22 tion between the two entities in the sense that you have the
23 same lawyer representing the original landowner and the suc-
24 cessor landowner even though they may be different entities.
25 Most importantly, you have the same principals involved. I
26 really have to say that I think that the lack of notice is
27 not a good objection here because notice in fact was complied.
28RW: Any questions that the Board has on that point?
29RT: what is the principal objection of the Trust you just made?
-17-