My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE36762
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE36762
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:59 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:13:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981235
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/16/1981
Doc Name
MLRB TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
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.
/
35
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
~ 1 <br />L J <br />• <br />• <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />I would further explain since the death of the decedent, <br />the Estate has continued with the sand and gravel and <br />construction business of the decedent, but has not done <br />so so as to knowingly violate any of the laws of the <br />state regarding reclamation permits. There were <br />substantial stockpiles of sand and gravel at the west <br />Tennessee Pass pit. 'Phese had been accumulated in years <br />past. It was my understanding as Mrs. Webster's attorney <br />and I believe N}r. Cosgriff's understanding representing <br />Mr. Webster and he will speak for himself in a moment, <br />I suppose that the removal of the existing stockpiles <br />did not constitute any violation or restrictions placed <br />upon Mr. Flebster when he was here in January, I believe <br />January 27t1i or 28th, 1981, tkiat there has been no <br />knowing violation of any kind on behalf of the Estate <br />or any of it's heirs to the orders of this board or to <br />the laws of the State of Colorado and while I can under- <br />stand the board wants to be consistent in its assessment, <br />I am sure that the reconunendations of your staff would <br />he in that order. I honestly don't see that it would <br />be apprioriate especially since the application is noco <br />pending for the board to make assessment of $20,000, even <br />if 10,000 is suspended against people, some of whom are <br />minors having an interest in the Estate, when they really <br />haven't done anything knowingly t}iat was improper. <br />en r r . rn Rrr crr:R .c a.r.toc/~i rl s. 1+c <br />[ rmlrz•;l Shin rhiur/ Hrpnnr~~ <br />l Spp Ch;m ~Jl. RuvJ <br />Lr. lrn,n. C ~~lr ~rodr 3tl1:1 <br />10 <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.