My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE25352
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE25352
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:44 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:59:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/7/1989
Doc Name
REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT VOL II
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.
/
48
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
<br /> <br />is <br /> <br />1 MR. BRIGGS: Yes. We would be estopped. I think the <br />2 Board can issue an order at any point regarding the permitted <br />3 activity of which if were violated, we would be subjected to all <br />4 the sanctions of violating a Board Order. <br />5 MR. O'CONNOR: What is your opinion on that, Frank? <br />6 MR. JOHNSON: I think outside of what the statute <br />7 specifically calls for, Z don't see anything specifically <br />8 prohibits it. I think the argument can be made that the Baard <br />9 authority stems from the finding of the violation. <br />10 It gives the authority to make these orders, I think <br />11 Mr. Briggs might be right that there does be estoppel principal <br />12 here but what occurs to me is that we are essentially negotiating <br />13 a decision here and are a number of parties to this hearing, I <br />14 think that that might create a problem. I doubt we'll get <br />15 waivers and stipulations from all of them. <br />16 MR. O'CONNOR: I recognize one rf more of the other <br />17 parties in the likelihood are not going to be excited if this is <br />18 the issue we oppose. <br />19 MR. JOHNSON: And, again, to try to clarify, I think <br />20 that we would run the risk of hearing the argument from the other <br />21 parties on the judicial review that the Board didn't have the <br />22 authority to issue an order without finding a violation. <br />23 And secondly, the Board has--and the Board has to make <br />24 some factual finding. There has to be some factual basis Por <br />25 saying there is nat s violation to begin with, and that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.