Well, it looks like someone's mad, doesn't it?
Today, counsel for PATH filed their Objections to Ali Haverty's Fourth Set of Discovery Requests. Right away Melick jumps in with a rather bold accusation, "Ms. Haverty intends to use the information to disparage Applicants." Really? And how would you know this with enough certainty to phrase it as a statement of fact? Can you read minds or something? That's really stretching it, even for ol' Melick. Gosh, I wonder who really wrote most of it? Who ever it is must be as ticked off as Cheetah the cat was over a little water washing the dirt off his paws.
Here's a translation of what ol' Phil is trying to say about the Sheffer invoices "incorrectly" being recorded to regulatory accounts that were subsequently recovered from ratepayers in 2009: We took money out of the ratepayers' pockets that we were not entitled to and we got caught!
And what's that about Ali "disregarding the position of Applicants that 'the use of responses to Information Requests propounded under the protocols is limited to the purposes identified in the protocols'"? This holds no water and is simply the puffery of Randy Palmer. There's no confidentiality requirements in the protocols and the information was provided without benefit of a protective agreement. You know, I could tell Randy to go jump off a cliff if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean he'd have to comply. Someone's still a little sore that we wouldn't sign his after-the-fact protective agreements. PATH wrote their own protocols and now finds them difficult to live with. Too bad, so sad, that's what happens when you want the public to pay for your project. With public funding comes transparency. If PATH didn't want to risk that public scrutiny of their activities could "disparage" them, then maybe PATH should have pursued a course of action that held them above reproach.
Blah, blah, blah... none of what Phil cites has any relation to the possible wrongful use of public funding, which is the case here. Ten pages of this crap? Really?
He finishes up with another accusation he can't back up: "Ms. Haverty’s latest discovery request was plainly propounded to vex and harass the Applicants."
PATH and their attorneys haven't got a clue, but they do a great job of showcasing their guilt. There's definitely more here than meets the eye. Stay tuned.
"The precious, they've stolen it!"
Utterly ridiculous, and now they've started making wild, disparaging accusations against pro se intervenors.
Today, counsel for PATH filed their Objections to Ali Haverty's Fourth Set of Discovery Requests. Right away Melick jumps in with a rather bold accusation, "Ms. Haverty intends to use the information to disparage Applicants." Really? And how would you know this with enough certainty to phrase it as a statement of fact? Can you read minds or something? That's really stretching it, even for ol' Melick. Gosh, I wonder who really wrote most of it? Who ever it is must be as ticked off as Cheetah the cat was over a little water washing the dirt off his paws.
Here's a translation of what ol' Phil is trying to say about the Sheffer invoices "incorrectly" being recorded to regulatory accounts that were subsequently recovered from ratepayers in 2009: We took money out of the ratepayers' pockets that we were not entitled to and we got caught!
And what's that about Ali "disregarding the position of Applicants that 'the use of responses to Information Requests propounded under the protocols is limited to the purposes identified in the protocols'"? This holds no water and is simply the puffery of Randy Palmer. There's no confidentiality requirements in the protocols and the information was provided without benefit of a protective agreement. You know, I could tell Randy to go jump off a cliff if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean he'd have to comply. Someone's still a little sore that we wouldn't sign his after-the-fact protective agreements. PATH wrote their own protocols and now finds them difficult to live with. Too bad, so sad, that's what happens when you want the public to pay for your project. With public funding comes transparency. If PATH didn't want to risk that public scrutiny of their activities could "disparage" them, then maybe PATH should have pursued a course of action that held them above reproach.
Blah, blah, blah... none of what Phil cites has any relation to the possible wrongful use of public funding, which is the case here. Ten pages of this crap? Really?
He finishes up with another accusation he can't back up: "Ms. Haverty’s latest discovery request was plainly propounded to vex and harass the Applicants."
PATH and their attorneys haven't got a clue, but they do a great job of showcasing their guilt. There's definitely more here than meets the eye. Stay tuned.
"The precious, they've stolen it!"
Utterly ridiculous, and now they've started making wild, disparaging accusations against pro se intervenors.
RSS Feed