Laserfiche WebLink
The imprecision in the August 2010 Order is only compounded in the December 2010 <br />Order. It states, without explanation, "The Board hereby issues a cease and desist order to the <br />Operator." AR:0170. Although the Hearing amply demonstrated the lack of clarity as to what <br />the August 2010 Order required Cotter to do before the August 31, 2010 deadline, the Board's <br />December 2010 Order still makes no attempt to define the precise conduct from which Cotter <br />must "cease and desist." <br />Given the inherent ambiguity in the August 2010 Order, followed by the December 2010 <br />Order's open -ended admonition to "cease and desist," the Court must hold the December 2010 <br />Order unlawful because both it and the prior order it enforces are too vague to be enforceable. <br />IV. The December 2010 Order Is Unlawful Because the Board Refused to Consider <br />Cotter's Evidence that Compliance with August 2010 Order Was Impossible. <br />In its Opening Brief, Cotter established it had vigorously attempted to submit evidence <br />showing it would have been impossible to begin, let alone complete, the dewatering process <br />within the three -week time period afforded by the August 2010 Order. (Opening Brief at 25.) <br />Cotter also cited the record to confirm that the Board repeatedly had rebuffed Cotter's attempt to <br />introduce evidence of impossibility. (Opening Brief at 26, citing AR:0265:3 -4; AR:0269:23 -25; <br />AR:0270:6 -9.) <br />Despite the clear record documenting the Board's blanket refusal to consider Cotter's <br />evidence of impossibility, Defendants now contend the Board "heard significant testimony from <br />Cotter regarding impossibility" and did consider the defense, and the Court should therefore <br />defer to the Board's "weighing the evidence and resolving questions of credibility." (Joint <br />Answer Brief at 10 -11, 34.) <br />17 <br />