10 June 2013: Petitioner Response to PPM revised response

Dear Ms. Parent:

Petitioners have no objection to this revised response. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while and within reason should be allowed to correct them. However, blaming you for making him do it, and seemingly mocking you in the process I find offensive. Furthermore, having re-read Procedural Order #5 I can see nothing in the wording of the Order to suggest that you have anything to apologize for or anything in it to justify Mr. Kelley’s imagined concerns over Department attitudes toward him or his counsel. Therefore I object to his suggestion that you review or revise the Order in any way. Mr. Kelley is imagining things. 

I would also note for the record that Mr. Kelley’s statement that the revision consists of “a few minor changes to the first paragraph on page four” is incorrect; footnote 10 has been changed:
 
From:

“See 38 MRSA §840(4)(B) regarding the issue of safety and §840(E) regarding accommodation of precipitation and run off of waters.”

To:

“See 38 MRSA §840(4)(B) regarding the issue of safety and §840(E) regarding accommodation of precipitation and run off of waters. An application for a new dam must be allowed if a water level is ordered.“

I’m not sure to what that change refers.
 
Respectfully,
George-
— 
George Fergusson <gsfergusson@gmail.com>
Whitefield, Maine 207-549-5991
“Dulcius ex asperis”