My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35747
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35747
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:17 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:46:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1987072
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/24/1992
Doc Name
Letter and Receipt for Penalty
From
W DREW LAMOREUX
To
MLRD
Violation No.
CV1991010
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.
/
9
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
. y <br /> ~.-. ., <br /> <br />Gale A. Norton <br />Attorney General <br />Raymond T. Slaughter <br />Chief Deputy Attorney General <br />Timothy M. Tymkovich <br />Solicitor General <br />ul~e ~#n#r of Cnnlnr~~ln <br />DEPARTMENT OF LAW <br />OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />January 7, 1992 <br />B.J. Fett, Esq. <br />105 E. Vermijo <br />Suite 600 <br />Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 <br /> <br />110 76th Street- 10th Floor <br />Denver, Colorado 60202 <br />Phone 620-a600 <br />FAX (303) 620-413 <br />~~ <br />RE: Mined Land Reclamation Division ("NERD") and the First <br />National Bank of Florence ("Bank") <br />Dear idr. Fett: <br />This is to convey the tdLRD's concern over the letter, dated <br />December 30, 1991, that it received from W. Drew Lamoreux. A <br />copy of that letter is enclosed. <br />Mr. Lamoreux apparently drafted his December 30 letter before you <br />received my December 24 letter. Nevertheless, I would like to <br />take this opportunity to restate the MLRD's position. The MLRD <br />regards the issues concerning the Notice of Violation as separate <br />from the issues involving reclamation, including the removal of <br />the conveyor. The December 10 letter from the MLRD is an offer, <br />pursuant to §34-33-123(8)(c), C.R.S. to settle an enforcement <br />action. The settlement of the enforcement action in no way re- <br />lieves the Bank of its obligation to maintain and reclaim the <br />site and remove the conveyor. <br />Mr. Lamoreux appears to believe that the MLRD is offering to <br />relieve the Bank of its obligation to remove the conveyor or <br />repair any damage caused by the removal of the conveyor. That is <br />not so. The MLRD filed the action in the district court in order <br />to assist the Bank in performing its obligation to reclaim the <br />sits°. The lawsuit does not seek to relieve the Bank of its duty <br />to reclaim the site and remove the conveyor. Rather, the lawsuit <br />aims to clarify title to the conveyor so that Mr. Strohecker may <br />remove the conveyor, thereby assisting the Bank in the perfor- <br />mance of its obligation. <br />The Bank's obligation to reclaim the site is due to its election <br />to perform reclamation rather than honor the MLRD's call on the <br />letter of credit. The Bank may discharge its obligation to per- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.