08 June 2013: A few thoughts on Kelley’s recent vitriolic response to Procedural Order 6

angry_business_manAfter having his request for an extension denied, I expected Paul Kelley to take things to another level but I did not expect him to lash out with an angry, hate-filled, indiscriminate attack against anyone and everyone. Nobody is above ridicule or scorn. Clearly, Kelley is losing this battle and he knows it, and this latest tirade is proof of that. For those of you who haven’t figured out what his response was all about, he’s appealing the Presiding Officer’s decision denying him an extension to the DEP Commissioner. That intent was contained in the last cryptic sentence on the very last page (the reference to 06-096 Chapter 3 refers to the Department of Environmental Protection’s rules concerning the conduct of licensing hearings, with section 4(D) being ruling appeals). The rest of the document is Kelley going postal: pure and simple spiteful vitriol or as the saying goes, “shock and awe”. That’s sure going to go over well with the Department. Not.

In his anger Kelly perhaps revealed a few things that a calmer, more cautious Paul Kelley would not have said. For example, I have suspected for a while now that his plan with the petition for release from dam ownership or water level maintenance (which he prefers to call “Clary Lake Dam abandonment proceedings”) was to try and stall the water level petition long enough to get a breach order from the State but of course he couldn’t come right out and say that because that’s not the purpose of the statute. He has to pretend he is looking for a new dam owner because to do otherwise would be to engage the State’s resources under false pretenses and make a mockery out of the system. Well he came right out and said in his response what the real deal with the petition for release from dam ownership is about, in footnote 6:

…”that the anomalies cited herein and in previous filings have largely triggered recent Clary Lake Dam abandonment proceedings by PPM – proceedings seemingly likely to lead to a formal (but superfluous) breach order by the Commissioner, which will supercede any Water Level Order which may issue from this proceeding.”

Caught in the act of playing both sides against the middle. Nice work Kelley, thanks for putting that bit on the record. DEP just loves to be played for a fool. Your chances of actually getting a breach order on the dam? Zero. Watching you try? Priceless.

I have a few other observations I’ll keep to myself for now. I have no intention at this time commenting on this response. There are several issues he’s raised (over and over and over) which will be adequately dealt with when we prepare our Findings of Fact. The DEP has their hands full for the time being. I see no sense in adding to the furor at this time.