My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL47586
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL47586
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:22:46 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 3:38:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000158
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/21/2001
Doc Name
APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE & MOTION IN LIMINE FILE BY DR MICHAEL PTASNIK PARTY &
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
i Fax~30336656912 Jun 'Ol 1327 P. 02 <br />" May 23 D1 lO:lla C~ Ginsbar6, Hetorney 410993 p.c <br />May 22 D1 ~6:33p ~''_~deriek L.GinsbsrC,Esq. 14 ,.zesii p•c <br />Y III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />9s9 <br />BEFORE THE MIND LAND RECLAAAATION BOARD. STATE OF COLORADO <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />File No. IVI-2000-158 <br />APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO M0710N FOR CONTINUANCE AND MOTION IN LIMINE <br />FILED BY UR. MICHAEL PTASNIK, PARTY, AND WESTERN MUTUAL DifCH <br />COMPANY, INTERVENOR, TOGETHER WITH APPLICANTS MOTION FOR <br />CONTINUANCE <br />Comes now the Applipnt in this matter, and responds to the above reterenct.+d <br />Motion as follows: <br />1. The Applicant finds no basis al law or otherwise that entitles the Intervenor to <br />the benefit of a cortlinuanoe. WIIen the h~tervenor filed Its letter to appear with the Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board on May 18, 2001 it did so at the risk that It mlgtrt have been <br />unable to amply prepare for the hearing of the application scheduied before the Board for <br />May 24, 2001. a difference of less than 6 days, artd ony 3 of which war's working days. <br />Insofar as the legal fxm representing the Intervenor also represents Dr. Ptasnil~ who hoe <br />personally attended nrusrerorrs meetings concerning this application including his <br />attendance at the prefiearing meeting on Apr(I 17, 2001, it is sheer nonsense to argue <br />Dr. Ptasnik had no inkling of "the issues m be addressed." It is even a greater anomaly <br />as to why neither Dr. Ptasnlc nor his counsel failed fo write a telephone either the <br />secretary to ~a Board or the Appficari's attamey m the 30 days following the April 17 pry <br />hearing meeting and request either a copy of the pre-hearirt$ order, or a list of the <br />Applicant's Wkrtasxs and extubBs. One is reminded of tl1e old Russian proverb 'Orly the <br />dead can delay dying.' <br />2 The Applicant is unable to determine vkly Dr. Ptasnik's counsei failed to receive <br />a copy of the pre-hearing order'in spite of repeated requests'. This does concern the <br />Appllcarrt in that fair play and due process of law mandate the right of every party in this <br />colas to receive and review copies of au of the pteadmgs or other related papers In a tlmery <br />fashion. <br />3, Rather than foist upon either the Board, iLs counsel or any of the other parties <br />the burden of procoadmg under the speller of questionable reeP.lpt of the order by Dr. <br />Ptasnik's counsel, Ilse Apptic~nt would prefer to cantinas the matter until 9.a.m. at Ills <br />t3oard's next regular meeting on June 27, 2001. During the interim the Board may wish <br />to hold another prefisaring conference to reooneile remaining issues, atW to issue a new <br />preftearing order well in advance of June 27. This would salisry any question of lack of <br />knouNedge by arty party atxxrt the wtslanding Issues. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.