My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31674
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31674
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:54:40 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:03:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
5/24/1995
Doc Name
FAX COVER TATUM SUBSIDENCE INVESTIGATION
From
LAW OFFICES OF JIM TATUM & ASSOC
To
OSM - DENVER
Permit Index Doc Type
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
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.
/
4
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
JXM TAj~M 8 ASSOCIATES TEL=7 995-7191 May 24.95 5=12 No.007 P.02 <br />h. a~+y.~t ~c, :C.JCN4 ~. ~. <br />~. '. <br />May 24, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />thickness is 450 feet, my house can't be effected because it <br />is more than 34? feet away, THEN when DMG corrects the <br />distance from the mine to my home to 362.5 in the Auqust 12,,. <br />1993, letter, DMG using a 30 degree angle of draw 'and 445 <br />foot overburden thickness, falls short of the "calculated <br />effects from subsidence 116.2 feet..." from the structure. <br />Consistent - I thi~~k not. <br />The pre]iminary conclusion as related to me by Mr. <br />Gerity after the May 19th on-site visit, expressed by the <br />State and OSM, waE~ that the structural damage was related to <br />the water problem from the roof. For the record, the FIRST <br />indication we had that the house was moving was the creak in <br />the dining room floor, the dining room window, and the <br />constant movement in the roof. It is obvious that the <br />damage to the upstairs Bitting room is water related, <br />however, this WAS NOT a problem until the structure moved, <br />and it became impossible to maintain the roof with the <br />constant movement. KEEP IN MIND THIS HOUSE HAD NO PROBLEMS <br />UNTIL AFTER THE MINING STARTED IN 1986 - A FACT WHICH CAN SE <br />CONFIRMED BY 14ANY PEOPLE. <br />I am requesting copies of the study protocols from all <br />parties who wer= present at the last two on-site <br />investigation::, resumes Prom Dr. Pendleton, Dr. Craft, and <br />Dr. Kohl, as well ss responses to my last several letters. <br />I am also enclosing a copy of the May 19, 1988, letter <br />from the mine - refer to page 2, paragraph 1. The mine was <br />well aware that they did not have to monitor the structure <br />until they were one month away Prom mining under the <br />structure. It is apparent that this STATE REQUIREMENT, <br />Stipulation 28, which, in turn,-refers to Section 2.05:6 of <br />the Board Regulations, is woefully inadequate as it does <br />not define the distance from which they must monitor, only <br />the time. This makes absolutely' no sense: The mine <br />committed a fraud on us with an intentional perversion of <br />the truth. The false, misleading, and untrue <br />representations of. the mine induced us into agreeing with <br />the mine's request.. <br />Elements of a cause for "fraud" include Palse <br />a reasonable person, or group of people, in the doing oP <br />some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not have <br />done. contributory negligence would be the act or omission <br />amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the <br />complaining party, which concurring. with the defendant's <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.