Laserfiche WebLink
..9,~.; HP. LaSerJ et 3106; <br />a <br />~ ~, .:_ <br />- -' •~' <br />x <br />is <br />its <br />:~~` <br />,r . <br />BOd2832B11; ~ Mar-ta-Ot fQ:59; <br />i <br />WAI.TUN D. MORRIS, JR <br />Attcmicy-at•Law <br />rose affiet tioi a8aa <br />Chulottcsville, Virginia 12906 <br />(B04) 293 diri I G <br />FAX: 293-2811 <br />March 14, 200] <br />YTA TEL)=t'AX'i'RAtvSMiSS1oN AND U S MA1L <br />Page 2 <br />III IIIIII~IIIIII III <br />Scot W. AndLYStnt> Esy. <br />llaviq, Graham & Stubbs <br />1550 1 T° Street, Suite S00 <br />is Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />1 .. i <br />;fix -,:: <br />f"a •~ Re: Basin Resources, Inc., v. Caloradn DM(i and Tim and Ann Tat~nn <br />~" ~~ Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-04 <br />F ~'~ fear MI. Anderson: <br />i, <br />'1'hattk you for transmitting tha motion of Basin Resources, Inc., w have the notice of <br />violation identified above adjudicated deepile the recent action ofthe Colorado Division of Minerals <br />and Geology ("DMCr") vacating the notice. i write on behalf of Jim and Ann "t'attun to point out <br />inaccuracies in thaz motion and to rage Basin to withdraw it is favor of litigating tlu: Tatutus' <br />sttbsidcncc damage claim in court. <br />Basin's motion charges thatthe'T'atutns asked llMG to vacate Notiu. of Violation No. CV- <br />~~ :. • 2000-004 so that "ii jf they are dissatisfied with their results in state court ...they can lodge another <br />' citizen's complaint and reirLState theNOV pmcess "That charge iS rnmpletely false, and thc'1'antrns <br />i.- are prepared to provide binding assurance of that fact. if the Tarums lose on the merits of thou <br />s :., subsidence damage claims in court, they would be barred from renewittb their citizen complaint with <br />DMG. Moreover. DMG would Nava nu legal basis fur reissuing a notice of violation against Basin <br />in the wake of a loss by the Tattuns in court. The Tatwns requested that DMG vacate Notice u1' <br />Violation Nu. CY-2000-004 without prejudice so that, if Dasin were to refuse to pay any future <br />judgment they obtain on their subsidence damage claim, the Tatttms tray ftle a new citizen complaint <br />to enforce payment of the judgment. As 1 stated in my letter to DMG, the Tattuns consider that <br />possibility exnntucly remote. Nonetheless, they wish to preserve their right to pt¢sue post judgment <br />relief from DMG in the event that they prevail (rather than lose) in court- <br />Dasin's motion rests on the remarkable and errroneous view that DMCr has no prosecutorial <br />ditic;retian whatsoever. Tha company says that llM0 must issue a notice of violation whatever it <br />perceives facts that constitute a violation of elate regulations. Basin contends that the agency must <br />then prosecute every challenged notice oi'violation to decision on the merit,. Putting aside fot the <br />moment the complete absence of authority for those positions, is Basin really sure it wants to <br />ZO'd 8Z:6 T0. bT JpW 8S5£998£0£~xed <br />