My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE33438
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE33438
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:55 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:45:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
3/27/2000
Doc Name
JIM & ANN TATUM ON RECONSIDERATION IBLA 96-90 AND 96-91
From
WALTON D MORRIS JR
To
BOARD OF LAND APPEALS
Violation No.
TD1993020370005TV3
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.
/
5
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
04/14/00 .FRI 10:48 FeL[ 303 271 5363 SULICII'OR/DENVER <br />With respect to the grounds OSM originally asserted in its petition for reconsideration, Jim <br />and Ana Tatum' stand on the arguments set forth in their previously-filed manorandum in <br />opposition. The Tatums move to strike OSM's new arguments, set forth on pages 7-9 of the <br />agency's "response," on the grounds that, to the extent that they differ from the arguments OSM <br />earlier set forth, the agency foreclosed its ability to assert them by omitting those arguments from <br />its petition for rewnsideration. Nothing in the Tatum's opposition to OSM's petition for <br />reconsideration raised any of the "new" issues. OSM's assertion of them in its "response" is an <br />outright abuse of the adntirtistrative review process. <br />Ifthe Board is nonetheless inclinedto consider OSM's new arguments, the Tatums move the <br />e Boazd for Leave to file a surreply. Consideration of OSM's new arguments without allowing the <br />Tatums to present points and authorities in opposition would deny the Tatums due process of ]aw. <br />Moreover, OSM's "respotse" forces the Tatums to assert, fortbe first time, that clarification <br />of the Board's decision is is fact necessary to ituure justice in this case aad to prevent OSM from <br />further abusing the administrative process. This is so because OSM's `tiresponse" pleading makes <br />clear that, absent clarification oftbe remedial language contained in the Hoard's decision, OSM will <br />continueto misinterpret the Colorado state program by refusing to cite Basin Resources, Inc. ("BRI") <br />Coz violation ofthe Colorado program unless OSM determines that there is present, ongoing failure <br />by 13R1 to pay jast compensation to the Tatums. <br />Contrary to the position that OSM expresses in its "response;' the Board's decision <br />unequivocally holds that the finding that BR['s mining operation did, in fact, damage the Tatums' <br />residence "establishes a violation of the Colorado Stare program under 2 Colo. Code Regs. 4.20:' <br />Jim ~ Ann Tatum, i 51 IBI.A at 308. Nonetheless, OSM has brazenly asserted that, if required to <br />2 <br />®DOa <br />SO'd IO~bi 00. bi ~dy 8S5£998£0£~xe~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.