My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE25006
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE25006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:33 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:52:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
1/2/2004
Doc Name
Motion for Clarification of Court Order Dated August 11 2003
From
District Court Denver County
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- ~ Boynton, et al. v. MLRB, et al. <br />Case No. Ol CV3425 <br />Verified Motion for Clazific3tion <br />Page 2 <br />the Formal Hearing that indicate that the MLRB violated the Colorado Administrative <br />Procedures Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-4-101 to -107 again in this mattez. <br />3. Pursuant to the Court's directive, the MLRB held and recorded aPre-Hearing Conference <br />in this matter on October 29, 2003, in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Boynton attended the Pre-Hearing <br />Conference in person. Ms. Boynton had requested a change of venue to Cortez, Colorado, but <br />her Motion was denied, See Order on Motion for Change of Venue attached hereto as Exhibit A. <br />4. On November 21, 2003, the MLRB issued a proposed Pre-Heazing Order setting the <br />Formal Public Hearing for December 16-17, 2003 in Denver, Colorado, setting forth the issues to <br />be heard at the Formal Hearing, and establishing the schedule of presentations for said hearing. <br />See Proposed Pre-Hearing Order attached hereto as Exhibit B. Despite discussions held at the <br />Pre-Heazing Conference, it appeazed from the Proposed Pre-Heazing Order that the MLRB was <br />going to conduct the Formal Hearing in the same unfair manner as it had in 2001, such as <br />allowing the Division of Minerals and Geology ("DMG") to have the last rebuttal, not giving <br />Ms. Boynton the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses for the DMG, and giving the DMG <br />more time to present evidence during its rebuttal period so that all of its evidence would come in <br />without cross-examination or rebuttal. Thus, Ms. Boynton filed a Motion for Revisions to <br />Proposed Pre-Hearing Order, attached hereto as Exhibit C. <br />5. Counsel for Boynton and counsel for the MLRB held several conversations regarding <br />Ms. Boyntou's concen~s regarding the Formal Hearing process. Prior to the Formal Hearing a <br />tentative agreement in this regard was reached. Such agreement was conveyed to Ms. Boynton <br />at the Fonna] Hearing on December 16, 2003, allowing her to have the final rebuttal and <br />allowing her to cross-examine the DMG witnesses. <br />6. At Ms. Boynton's request, the MLRB had issued several subpoenas for witnesses that <br />Ms. Boynton wished to have appear at the Formal Hearing. One of these witnesses was Larry <br />Lang from the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB"), the state agency in charge of <br />floodplain regulation. Prior to the Pre-Heating Conference and the Formal Hearing, Ms. <br />Boynton had several conversations with Mr. Lang about testifying. Counsel for Ms. Boynton <br />had conversations with him as well in this regard. However, when Ms. Boynton served Mr. <br />Lang with the subpoena, counsel for the CWCB contacted counsel for Ms. Bo}mton and stated <br />that Mr. Lang's testimony would be quite limited -that he could only testify as to fact but no <br />opinions azid that should she ask him any question of opinion, she would be sanctioned attd <br />fined. Counsel for the CWCB reminded Ms. Boynton of this policy at the beginning of the <br />Formal Hearing. Thus, Ms. Boynton greatly limited her questions for Mr. Lang to comply with <br />such constraints, which proved extremely detrimental to her arguments. <br />7. At the Formal Hearing, and despite the agreement that Ms. Boynton would have the <br />opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses, members of the MLRB objected and interrupted Ms. <br />Boynton throughout nearly all of her cross-examinations, denying her a fair opportunity to <br />conduct these cross-exams. <br />BOYNTON•motion for clarification <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.