ENFORCE28221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

06/12/2001 15:34 FA% III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII X002/005 sss Snell &Wilmer L.L.e uwor-alas 1200 Seventeenrh Stmt, Suite 1950 Tabor Center Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) fi342000 Fax: (303) G34-2020 Robert D. Comer (303) 634-2015 Internet: tcomeAswlaw.com Mr. Mazk Held, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Business and Licensing Section 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mark: ncvNOC AInLF1A June 12, 2001 Tt~+~Ag~ mvaag,cvuoawA SALTIAI®QfT. UTAH Via Facsimile and U. S. Mail Enclosed please find the comments of Powderhom Coal Company ("Powderhom") to the letters prepared by Ms. Linden and dated June 7 and 8, 2001. In submitting continents by letter dated June 7, 2001, Powderhor sought to make only those changes necessary to accomplish what, in our view, seemed to be the objectives of the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd ("Board"). It was not the intention of Powderhom to suggest changes outside the scope of the specific Boazd directives during the hearing. Part of the Boazd's direction, seemed to be a mandate that the parties work together given the difficult circumstances created by the status of Frontier. Powderhom appreciates the leadership demonstrated by the Division and counsel to the Board in working to achieve this objective. Powderhom Responses to June 8.2001 Linden Letter Findings Comment ¶ 1. This may be a matter of semantics over a point not critical to the Order. When a party has a right to a hearing, and agrees to have that hearing at a later date, it would seem that it simply has deferred its right to a heazing. The fact that the order was entered summarily without hearing, but subject to a hearing at a later date, does not waive Frontier's right to a hearing. Ms. Linden has cited to relevant provisions of the document executed by Frontier, which has been entered as an exhibit to the proceeding. Findings Comment ]~ 2. Order ~ 1. Ms Linden states that because the issue of agreement to stay Powderhom's appeal of the order was preceded by the phrase, "then this is up to the Boazd" implies that the Boazd did not act on the question of agreeing to stay litigation so as to protect the appeal rights of Powderhom without requiring the matter to proceed to full blown litigation. This was an issue important to Powderhor in which significant discussion was held before the Board and in the Boazd ordered negotiating session. Although counsel to the Division was opposed to this agreement, the Board and the Division were not opposed to a mutual stay of litigation filed to preserve appeal rights. Member. LE]( M(JNDI, a global association of independent Isw Erms with members in the United Stites snd 60 counvies thmughoul the world. Snell A Wilmer us a member of LE~f HVNq, a leading assocmtion o(independen[ Inw turns.