ENFORCE25006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Boynton, et at. v. MLRB, et al. Case No. OICV3425 Verified Motion for ClaziFication Page 3 8. Ms. Boynton presented evidence at the Formal Hearing that Four States has a berm located on an oil and gas easement which would interfere with the grantee's use of such easement and that such berm is located 35 feet from where Four States' application and mining plan says it should be. The berm is in violation of Four States' own mining plan, yet the MLRB stated it did not caze about such evidence. The MLRB also stated that it did not care to heaz about problems with Four States' substitute supply plan, a plan required by the Division of Water Resources, in violation of C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116. 9. Four States' engineer had stated during his presentation that Four States had between 20- 30 feet of gravel to mine making it a very productive gravel pit; yet when Ms. Boynton cross- examinedthis engineer he stated that they had only about five feet of gravel, making the pit truly not economical. Again,.the MLRB stated it did not care about such information. ] 0. At the Formal Hearing, the MLRB prevented Ms. Boynton from cross-examining a DMG employee, WaIty Erickson, regazding his bias toward gravel pits. 11. As agreed upon at the beginning of the Formal Hearing, Ms. Boynton had the final rebuttal. Yet during the DMG's rebuttal period, the MLRB was already asking how it could make revisions and order additional water quality testing, indicating that it had already made up its mind to grant the Four States' permit again without hearing all of the evidence, 12. Ms. Boynton requested that A]an Sorenson's testimony (Mr. Sorenson is an engineer working for the DMG) and Harvey Posey's testimony be stricken from the record because they admitted on doss-examination that they had never seen the Line Camp Pit, and thus they could not testify as expert witnesses. When she made this request, the MLRB "blew up" and said such a request was inappropriate. 13. Although Ms. Boynton limited her examination of Mr. Lang in accordance with his counsel's request, as set forth in paragraph 6 above, the MLRB openly questioned him regarding legal conclusions and opinions and his counsel did not object. This presented a very unfair situation for Ms. Boynton as she had called him as her witness yet was not allowed to fully bring out his testimony due to the State's restraints, and was in fact converted into a DMG witness. 14. As the parties previously briefed in this matter, the MLRB and Four States agree that quasi-judicial proceedings "must be conducted in accordance with procedural due process... . And, fundamental fairness is the cornerstone of due process." Soon Yee Scott v. City of Englewood, 672 P.2d 225, 227 (Colo.App. 1983). Fundamental fairness requires adjudicatory bearings to be conducted impartially. See id. at 228. The Colorado APA requires that "every party to the proceeding shall have the right to present his case or defense ... to submit rebuttal evidence and to conduct such cross-examination as Wray be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts." C.R.S. § 24-4-105(7) (emphasis added). The MLRB had stated in its answer brief that "If the Board denied them [Plaintiffs] a full and fair opportunity to present their cases, the transcript should reflect some action by the Board interrupting a Plaintiff during a case BOYNTON-motion for clarification