GENERAL38280 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fax ~ 30386656912 Jun 21 ' 01 13 27 P. 02 Elay 23 O1 30: l la ~d Ginsber•ga Httorney 3[I~41O993 P• ~ .May 22 O1 Oe:33p ederlek L.GinsberC,Esq- 146s~~111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 99 BEFORE THE MIND LAND RECLAMATION BOARD. STATE OF COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO File Ho. Ni-2000-158 APPLCANT'S RESPONSE TO M07fON FOR CONTINUANCE AND MOTION IN LiMINE FILED BY D1t MICHAEL PTASNIK, PARTY, AND WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH COMPANY, INTERVENOR, TOGETHER WITH APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Comes now the ApplipM in this matter, and responds to the above referenced Motion as follows: 1. The Applicant finds rto basis el law of otherw(se that entitles the Intervenor to the berteTit of a cavinuertoe. When the Irttervertor filed its letter !o appear with the Mined Land Reclamation Board on May 18, 2001 it did so at the risk that it mtgM have been unable to ampy prepare for the hearing of the application sciteduied before ttre Board for May 24, 2001. a dilTerenoe of less than 6 days, and only 3 of which were working days. Insofar as fhe legal firm representing the Intervenor also represents Dr. Ptasnik, who has personally attended numerous meetings concerning this application including his attertdartrre at the prefiearing meeting on April 17, 2001, it is sheer nonsense to argue Dr. Ptasnik had no inkling of "the issues to be addressed." It is even a greater anomaly as to why neither Dr. Ptaernk nor his counsel failed to write or telephone either the secretary >fl ~~ t3eand or the Appticarrt's attorney in the 30 days following the April 17 pew hearing meeting and request effher a copy of the pre-hearing order, or a list of ttte Applicants wdnesses and etdtbits. One is reminded of cite old Russian provertr •Orty the dead can decay dying.' 2. The Applicant is unable to determine vky Dr. Ptasnik's wunsel faifad to reoeiva a copy of the pre-hearing order'in spite of repeated requests'. This does concern the Applicant In that fair play and due process of Few mandate the right of every party in this case to receive and rt:vrew espies of alt of the pleadrtxJs or other related papers in a timely fashion. 3, Rather than foist upon either the Board, iks counsel or any of the other parties the burden of procead'rng under the specter Of questionable receipt of the order by Dr. Ptasnik's counsel, the Applicant would prefer M continue the matter until 9_a.m. at the Board's next regular meeting on June 27, 2001. During the interim the Board may wish to hdd another pre{~aring oor><erence fo reooneile remaining issues, and to issue a new prefiearing order well in advarre of June 27. This would satisfy any question of lack of knowledge by arty party about the outsland'mg issues.