Laserfiche WebLink
----- <br />fdt c o 3 <br />04/14/00 .FRI 10:49 FA7t 70] 231 5763 SOLICITOR/DENVER <br />UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR <br />OFFICE OF HR.sRnvCS AND APPEALS <br />4015 WiL+on Boulevard <br />Arlington, Virginia 22203 <br />JiM TATUM ) <br />and ) <br />ANN TATUM, ) <br />petitioeers, ) <br />v. )IBLA Nos. 96-90 and 96-91 <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING ) <br />RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, ) <br />Respondent.l <br />THE TATUMS' MOTION TU STRIKE OSM'S NEW ARGUMENTS <br />~iD FOR CLARIFICATION OF $OARD'S DECiS10N <br />DATED JANUARY 5.2000 <br />On March 6, 2000, the Officc of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("OSM") <br />filed a pleading that purports to be a "Response" to the appellanu' opposition to reconsideration of <br />the decision in Jim & Ann Tatum, I51 IBLA 286 (2000). The pleading first advances the absurd <br />nation that OSM may properly challenge a final decision of the Board on grounds that OSM failed <br />to assert in a timely manner and thus lost the right to assert at this or any subsequent juncture in this <br />case. Next, desperately invoking ane of the Boazd's historical grounds for granting reLonsideration, <br />OSMprofessts that its petition forreconsideration seeks onlyto "clazify" the Boazd's initial decision <br />in this case. However, even the most cursory examination of the petition reveals that OSM is <br />actually after a complete change in the result rather than a clearer explanation of the Board's <br />seasoning for reaching that result. Ultimately, OSM presents three arguments that it neglected to <br />make is its pcrition for reconsideration, brazenly terming them "additional support for granting of <br />the Petition." <br />b0'd i0:bi 00. bi ~dy 8SS£998£0£:xPd <br />