Laserfiche WebLink
26, 2010 (the "Duffy and Freitag Objections "), bear particular discussion and specific relief that <br />WFC will request from the Board. <br />A. The Duffy and Freitag Objections are Deliberately Misleading. <br />The Duffy and Freitag Objections are part of Ms. Turner's attempt to obtain a re- interpretation <br />by the Board of the Soil Survey completed by Jim Irvine of Intermountain Resources in 1998 <br />(the "Irvine Soil Survey "). See, Exhibit B attached (excerpt of Irvine Soil Survey containing <br />findings). Among the many findings in the report, one finding was that the Barx soils on the <br />Morgan property were not Prime Farmland soils because of the pH factor. This finding was later <br />determined to erroneous, however at the time there was no dispute among WFC, the Division, or <br />the Morgan family that the Irvine Soil Survey had reached and properly supported this <br />conclusion. <br />In an attempt to re- interpret the Irvine Soil Survey, Ms. Duffy and Ms. Freitag purport to instruct <br />the Board in the meaning of a double negative in the English language. As well as being <br />completely irrelevant — the 1998 Soil Survey was the subject of Board and DRMS action that is <br />long past review — the analysis of these objectors, obtained and sponsored by Ms. Turner, is <br />misleading and, WFC believes, deliberately so. <br />The page from the Irvine Soil Survey that contains the author's "Interpretations" concerning all <br />soil types he reviewed is attached as Exhibit B (the complete report is voluminous and is already <br />contained in the administrative record for past New Horizon Mine permit approvals). This report <br />simply does not contain the alleged "double negative" that is the sole subject of the Duffy and <br />Freitag Objections. Rather, the Irvine Soil Survey states as follows: `Barx, irrigated as used in <br />this survey is considered as not being prime farmland because the pH is higher than 7.4 in all <br />horizons." See, Exhibit B. WFC conducted an electronic word search of the entire document <br />that identified each place where the word `Barx" appears and has confirmed that the purported <br />"double negative" appears nowhere in the document. <br />Because this report was in the possession of Ms. Turner, Ms. Duffy, and Ms. Freitag when their <br />claims as to the "double negative" were made, this error cannot simply be inadvertence (note that <br />both objections state that Ms. Turner brought the objector a copy of the report to review). <br />Rather, it was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Board by suggesting that a statement was in the <br />report when that simply was not the case. <br />B. Relief Requested <br />The Hearing Officer and Board can reach their own conclusions based upon review of these <br />documents. However, WFC requests a specific finding of fact that (1) the statement referenced <br />in the Duffy Objection does not appear in the Irvine Soil Survey and (2) Ms. Turner, Ms. Duffy, <br />and Ms. Freitag have engaged in a deliberate attempt to deceive the Board by attempting to <br />submit testimony they knew to be false or misleading in a material respect. <br />4 <br />