Laserfiche WebLink
The Board concluded that Cotter's impossibility defense was not credible and that Cotter's <br />"offer of proof' did not present information relevant to the issues at the November Hearing. <br />Board member Randall explained that "the offer of proof really goes to whether or not the [August <br />Order] was a correct one ... and could be a consideration by a court in — should Cotter move for a <br />TRO or some sort of injunction against the enforcement of the board's order ... [b]ut it doesn't go <br />to whether or not Cotter has complied with the —with Corrective Actions Numbers 2 and 3." <br />R:0269, 11. 10 -21. The Board's decision to reject Cotter's impossibility defense and its further <br />"offer of proof' is supported by substantial evidence in the record and should be upheld. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The Board reasonably interpreted its enabling statute and took actions that were <br />warranted by the administrative record in this case. By its own admission, Cotter made no <br />attempts to comply with corrective actions required to prevent ongoing violations. Instead, <br />Cotter raised a number of novel arguments in an effort to prevent the Board from enforcing its <br />lawful order and carrying out its regulatory mandate. Based on the foregoing, the Court should <br />uphold the Board's December 8, 2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />JOHN W.SUTHERS <br />Attorney General <br />/s/ John J. Roberts <br />JOHN J. ROBERTS, 30124* <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Agriculture /Professional Unit <br />Business & Licensing Section <br />Attorney for Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />*Counsel of Record <br />29 <br />