Laserfiche WebLink
(Sent By: Klauzer & Tremaine, LLC; <br />970 879 1131; <br />Aug-27-03 4:09PM; <br />Page 2/3 <br />RECEIVED <br />KLAUZER & TREMAINE, LLC <br />Attorneys 4t La,w <br />P,O. Bux 774525. Steamboat Springs, Colorodn $(1477 <br />320 Lincoln Avcnuc - SccUnd T'looz <br />Randall w.lClauzer Phunc:(970) $79-5003 Fax: (970)$79-)135 <br />Member, Colorado Her ~ kt1Hw.COrq. . <br />J. RicLard Trcmainc <br />Member, Coloredo, D.C, end Virginia Hen <br />August 27, 2003 <br />VIA FACSIMILE (303) 832-8106 <br />State of Colbiado <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Atten: Tom Schriever <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Mr. Schriever: <br />Rc: LaFarge <br />Al1G 2 7 200 <br />Division of Minerals & Geology <br />Claire 1"s. Sollars . <br />Member, Calmodo im,f Wyoming tla[s <br />Jamos "Sandy" Horner <br />Member, Colorado end Wyomi,vi Han <br />This letter is a follow up to the conversation you had today with my pazalegal, Karen Dierkes, <br />regarding the pre-hearing set for August 28, 2003. My interpretation of the package I received <br />from you with respect to the hearing is that this was a matter between the applicant ant the Slate. <br />To be notified today that you are expecting myself and.my client to be present at a hearing <br />scheduled for tomorrow did not allow us the opportunity to make arrangements to attend this <br />hearing: Tttyerefore, as Ms. Dierkes explained to you today, we will not be able to attend the <br />hearing on tlugust 28, 2003. <br />lrt addition, as Ms, Dierkes mentioned to you today, i received a copy of the LaFazge response <br />on August 25:, 2003 which T have not had the opportunity to review as of this date. <br />Your package to me discussing.the pre-hearing did not specifically state ourpresence was <br />needed nor required. I understand front Ms. Dierkes, that it is your position that our absence <br />from this pre;hearing may cause my client to be dismissed from this proceeding. This result <br />would be unfair and inappropriate, since the objections raised were related to deficiencies in the <br />LaFazge application, and my client's concern as an adjacent property owner, <br />Unfortunately, I;heve the following commitments tomorrow: <br />- court bearing; in the morning <br />-major reall"estate closing; and <br />- special. district boazd meeting tomorrow evening. <br />The combination of these commitments precludes me from heing able to attend your hearing or <br />provide a more detailed response at this time. <br />s <br />