My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE34199
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE34199
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:16 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:04:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/31/1983
From
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN
To
MLRD
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.
/
8
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
~~ -. • • i <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: File 02320-00590 <br />FROM: C.L. Netzel <br />DATE: December 15, 1982 <br />RE: MLRB Hearing Scheduled for December 15 <br />On December 15th, MLRB had scheduled a formal adjudica- <br />tory hearing on certain alleged violations at the Schwartz- <br />walder Mine. Before the Board meeting started at 9:00 a.m., <br />Dan Dunn, Tim Smith, Eric ,N rFr and I presented to Dave <br />Shelton our proposed Stipulation. Dave said that he agreed <br />with the Stipulation, except for paragraph 11. He was con- <br />cerned about whether that paragraph would preclude the Board <br />from seeking penalties or other appropriate action if Coi:ter <br />did not comply with the Stipulation. We suggested language <br />to alleviate this concern. His only problem with the drift <br />scope of work was paragraph 10. He suggested that this F>ara- <br />graph more clearly state that it would address possible changes <br />in channel location. <br />After the meeting started, Dave Shelton showed the <br />Stipulation to Janice Burnett, the lawyer from the Attorney <br />General's office advising the Board. She expressed several <br />other concerns, and redrafted paragraph 11. After extended <br />discussion with Shelton and her about the proposed language <br />of paragraph 11, Shelton suggested that we simply recommend <br />to the Board that the hearing be continued until the applica- <br />tion for amendment was submitted and considered by the Board. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.