ENFORCE32295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Q8/12/2001 15:34 FA% III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII fdj002/005 I sss Snell &Wilmer l.l.e uw txfittrs 1200 Sevmoxnth Street' Suite 1950 Tabor Cmrer Drover, Colorado 80202 (3Q3)634.2000 Faz: (303)634.2020 June 12, 2001 Robert D. Comer (303) 634.2015 Intemeu srnmes®awlaw.wm Mr. Mazk Held, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Business and Licensing Section 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Deaz Mark: ~~~ ea»auc nnva+n ,t,~ota, nnmowa lavaae, c~uaann SLLTU1YQfY.IIfNI 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, Powderhom sought to make only those changes necessary to accomplish what, in our view, seemed to be the objectives of the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Boazd"). 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 demonsVated by the Division and counsel to the Board in working to achieve this objective. Powderhom Responses to June 8. 2001 Linden Letter Findin¢s Comment 4 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 hearing. 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. Findinss Comment 4 2. Order 9 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 Board" implies that the Board 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 Powderhom in which significant discussion was held before the Board and in the Board 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; LEX MUNDI, a global association of independent law fimss with memben in the Unimd Sums end 60 camuries ihroughoul am .vorld. Snell & Wilmer is a member of lrx NUNOI, a leading associarion of independenr law firms.