Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> G: May I interject. . . we have to deal with first things first , for this to make <br /> sense, the threshold question has to be notice, and we were not given notice <br /> and not having been given notice we were under no obligation to supply you <br /> with any objection of that , there was no reason for us to object because we <br /> didn ' t know proceedings was actually going before them but even if notice under <br /> any form was given clearly under the statute and the regulations says that <br /> statement of a concisely stating pronounced objection shall be presented. <br /> Objection was given to you - we stated 4 grounds , as a matter of law, there <br /> was an objection, which clearly the notice problem' s in violation of law, you <br /> were put on notice that there was a series of objections here, we are under <br /> no obligation to do so, but we did so. And we are appearing here today to <br /> explain this to you and to try to shortcut whatever proceedings we might have <br /> to go thru in order to resolve this to the interest of our client. <br /> RW: Do you have an explanation why there was not included in here the deficiency <br /> of notice. <br /> G: I don' t know becaise at the time Mr. Stimwiddel wrote that letter I don' t knwo <br /> the particular situation. But it' s talking about that in the last couple of <br /> days. It seems that he was trying to _at the time he realized Eagle River <br /> w was affected - why would heget something out here to protect him and he didn' t <br /> have time. and out in Eagle , Colorado theyFre not up on the latest. version <br /> of the Boar Mined Land Reclamation Regulations he jsut knew well , I should <br /> get these objections out to you, so you know that we have some objections , <br /> here , so we can appear before the Board to present this. <br /> RW: Mark <br /> MH: The next day, Feb. 17 1 was in Glenwood , I called Mr. Stimwiddel and I asked <br /> him you know what ' s the nature of your objections because I jsut wanted <br /> to know, I hadn' t received aletter yet , but I talked to his secretary the <br /> day before, he had called down here and talked tQ Bob, and I called his secre- <br /> tary and they informed me that there was a letter of objection so I wanted to <br /> find out what his objections were, go to work on it , see if there was-something <br /> that could be resolved (static) and he couldn' t indicate anything to <br /> me in that conversation as to what the nature of his objections were. <br /> RW: Ok <br /> G: I don' t understand why he would be under an obligation to . . . ft seems to me <br /> why should he be under an obligation after having first discovered understanding <br /> what Eagler River Trust objections were, he had no doubt nor had time to confer <br /> with the Trust to review the application or anything. But he felt that some- <br /> thing must have been amiss. that his client wasn ' t noticed. and a rather <br /> lengthy application it' s not very easy to determin what the objections might <br /> be as you gentlemen can certainly understand <br /> RW: Ok, the Board has a sense on this. <br /> LBorRT: We know the law is a precisely worded document. I feel that there' s something <br /> more important about a law, there' s an intene behind it and there' s also good <br /> faith, and I feel as far as notification goes, the operator has shown good faith <br /> and an intent to properly notice the affected landowners. Granted there is <br /> precise wording but I still think the wording is not as important as the intent <br /> of good faith behind the word. <br />