10 June 2013: PPM submits revised response to Procedural Order #6

dohPaul Kelley has submitted a revised response to Procedural Order #6 along with a typically confusing, profusely-footnoted cover letter explaining what the error was in the original copy. Rather than stopping there however, which would have been fine, he continues on in excruciating detail to explain WHY the error occurred and he has the gall to rest the blame with the Presiding Officer herself, for making him do it:

Kelley can do no wrong: even when he makes a mistake it’s someone else’s fault!

5 thoughts on “10 June 2013: PPM submits revised response to Procedural Order #6

  1. Steve Viti

    Will someone please tell me what kinds of d___s this guy is on. I want to have the name next time I go to the doctor, have it added to my permanent records to not administer this stuff to me at any point…ever. Sheesh!

  2. Baxter

    He’s creating multiple bases for extending the process. He’s trying to show bias in the DEQ, deprevation of representation by the DEQ, incompetence of the DEQ– whatever it takes to extend the timeline. He will soon request, in light of the history, that new people be assigned from the department as he tries to perfect a breach order before a water level order. Wouldn’t be surprised if the lawyers reappear and formal legal actions are launched to slow the process.

  3. wbbassman

    Mr. Kelley is acting like a little boy who has the only ball and now wants to choose who to play with. Give it up you made a bad business decision in buying the property years ago. Get out and stop making the people and wildlife suffer because of your actions.

    Thank you
    Wayne B. longtime fisherman on Clary until recently.

Comments are closed.