Laserfiche WebLink
l <br />aF ~o~ <br />~~~ <br />y~~~ ~$ <br />* + <br />} /876 " <br />KEN SALAZAR <br />A¢omey General <br />CHRISTINE M. ARCUELLO <br />Chief Deputy Attorney General <br />AGIN J. CILaERT <br />Solicitor General <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DEPARTMENT OF LAW <br />OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERIC <br />June 8, 2001 <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Mark Held <br />Assistant Attomey General <br />Business and Licensing Section <br />FROM: Cheryl A. Linden 1~1Q/, <br />First Assistant AttotStey General <br />Natural Resources and Environment Section <br />RE: Comments from Powderhor on proposed Board Order <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />sss <br />STATE SERVICES BUILDING <br />1525 Sherman Street - 5th Floor <br />Denver Colorado 50303 <br />Phone 303) 866-1500 <br />FAX 303) 866-5691 <br />I have reviewed the comments and suggested changes to the proposed order in the <br />Powderhom Coal Company matter submitted by Bob Comer, Powderhom's attorney, on June 7, <br />2001. I have the following comments and objections to his proposed additions to the order: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />Mr. Comer suggests stating in pazagraph ~ that Frontier "has deferred its right" to a <br />heazing on suspension of its license. Nothing in the record supports that Frontier has <br />deferred its right to a hearing. The waiver executed by Frontier states that Frontier <br />"agrees without protest to the entry of the foregoing Order of Summary Suspension <br />without a hearing and understands that a hearing will be scheduled only upon written <br />application by the undersigned." There is no evidence in the record that Frontier has <br />made written application for a heazing or any other indication that Frontier has done <br />anything other than waive its right to a hearing on the suspension of its license. <br />?. The proposed changes to paragraph l2 concern whether the Boazd agrees to stipulate <br />to a stay in the event Powderhom seeks judicial review of the Boazd's order. This <br />issue is for the Boazd to decide. The Division's only comment is that the director <br />made it clear in his remazks to the Boazd that any stay is up to the Boazd. TThereafter. <br />the Board does not specifically make a decision on whether to stay any future <br />litigation. <br />