ENFORCE34971

• Permit No: M1974041
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: AMENDED COMPLAINT PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

_ D. By approving the transfer of the permit to Cooley
Gravel Company, notwithstanding the fact that Cooley Gravel
Company does not have a right to possession to the property in
question, the plaintiff has been precluded Erom exercising its
rights as a lessee under contract with the defendant, Lawrence
Construction Company, and is therefore precluded from engaging in
a mining operation under the permit issued to Lawrence, once the
Cease and Desist Order is withdrawn.
15. The procedures and subsequent findings and orders of the
MLRB dated July 24, 1985 exceeded its constitutional and
statutory authority, constituted a denial of due process of law,
constituted an erroneous interpretation of the law, was entered
in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and was unsupported by the
evidence in the following particulars:
A. As a party, the plaintiff and all other parties were
entitled to timely notice of all hearings, including time, place,
and nature thereof, the legal authority and jurisdiction under
which such hearing was to be held, and the matters of Eact and
law asserted. To conduct a hearing on reconsideration of viola-
tions and the Cease and Desist Order or to effectively conduct a
new hearing on all matters heard on May 22, 1985 without any
advance notice and over the objection of the plaintiff was not
timely nor pursuant to law or statute.
B. With regard to the reconsideration hearing, there
was no advanced notice (minimum 30 days) of the hearing or the
subject matter of the hearing, there was no notice in advance
setting forth the matters of fact and law asserted, and there was
no notice as to the legal authority and jurisdiction under which
the hearing Baas to be held.
C. There was a denial of due process in the fact that
the plaintiff was not given adequate notice or time to prepare
for a hearing on reconsideration.
D. At no time did the MLRB determine as a condition
precedent to the hearing that there was "reason to believe that a
violation had occurred of an order, permit, notice of intent, or
regulation issued under the authority of the Colorado Mined
Reclamation Act" and no written notice was given to the operator
or prospector of the alleged violation pursuant to law and
statute.
E. The finding of a violation that the operator had
failed to salvage and protect topsoil was improper, exceeded its
statutory authority, constituted an erroneous interpretation of
the law, was entered in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and
was unsupported by the evidence.
F. The Finding of a violation for mining in an area
that was not designated to be disturbed and more particularly in
an area east of elevation 5565 was improper, exceeded its
-6-