The statement was made here:
"CHS made illegal modifications and changes in the contract with Railstar after the GLRR was out of the picture and that should be the basis of all action to hold CHS responsible, remove Railstar and call for a correct and legal review of operations and the development of a proper proposal for an operator."
I would suggest that adding the word "IF" at the start of the statement would be appropriate, otherwise a legal determination was just made in my opinion.
It is not unusual for changes to be made in any contract, with specifics often being negotiated before or during a contract as conditions require. Had the previous operator offered a non-conforming bid, would CHS have been condemned for negotiating with them instead of another bidder that agreed to all of the intitial conditions?
Unless someone wants to obtain a legal opinion of CHS's actions under the laws of the State of Colorado, then those actions can only be considered by us to be at worst "questionable" at this time. No one should make legal accusations unless you have the evidence and are willing to file a formal complaint.
Note that as long as the operator did not do anything illegal and is in compliance with the current contract, then they are probably not at fault. Terminating a contract without cause just because it was improperly offered or the control changes after the fact may actually give the awarded bidder legal cause for action and damages.
Please don't let passion cloud common sense and due process. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made by all the involved parties, but that does not neccesarily make those actions criminal in any way.
