GENERAL33107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(7) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of an order shall have the burden of proof, and every party to the proceeding shall have the right to present his case or defense by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Id. By allowing the DMG staff to advocate on behalf of the proponent of the application, without advance notice to the objecting parties of documents and testimony of DMG staff, (or providing the objecting parties with the right to cross examine the DMG staff at the hearing). Therefore, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, and acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. By allowing the DMG staff to make an advance recommendation with numerous pages of inadmissible statements to advocate on behalf of the proponent, the board demonstrated its bias and board shifted the burden from the proponent of the application to the objecting parties. Therefore the board arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, and acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. The board denied the parties the opportunity to make timely objections for the record contrary to the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-4-105 (2001). Therefore, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. There is no evidence in the record to support the board's findings that the objecting parties did or failed to do anything that would justify the board denying subpoenas. The statements of The board's "finding" that Mr. Preston and Mr. Wuchert presented their motion for subpoenas to the pre-hearing 2