ML20114C102
| ML20114C102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1985 |
| From: | Aamodt M, Aamodt N AAMODTS |
| To: | Greenspun A JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| CON-#185-250 SP, NUDOCS 8501300014 | |
| Download: ML20114C102 (2) | |
Text
RSATED CORRESPONDEN(3 T t pfe,,
7 kh 7
on &
p)
R. D. 5, Box 428 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 January 22, 1985 Alan Greenspun
'5$ANQfP2:M Justice Department i
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Greenspun:
Please accept our apologies for the late provision of the enclosed memorandum of January 15, 1985 and attached copy of the Aamodt motion of June 21, 1984 When similar material was provided to the Attorney General and the Chief Criminal Division by personal delivery to the receptionist in the lobby of the Justice Department's main office, the receptionist would not accept it.for you.
The word "similar" in the above paragraph is used advisedly.
The copies of'the Aamodt motion provided to the Attorney General and Chief Criminal Division may not have had the first page of Affidavit 1 included.
If that has happened, the copy of the Aamodt motion enclosed should be used, solely, to represent the number and composition of pages of the document filed with the NRC.
We are certain that NRC received both pages of Affidavit 1 since they were both included in the copy of our motion sent to us by the NRC with an August 31, 1984 letter from William J..Dircks to the Commissioners.
Additional information concerning our complaint
~
which we have not yet brought to your attention is that the pa ge numbers (1 through 12) were missing from the copy of our motion sent to us by the NRC on August 31, 1985 If-you wi;h to hav; thi:
copy, we wvuld sladly previde 14 #*"'-
We will provide this copy upon your request.
It would appear that the page numbers, where they appeared in the original document filed with the NRC, were removed by the enpy the NRC sent to CDC.
As can
- Dr:, deduced from the September 7, 1984 letter to Dr. Mills, be Caldwell begins by expressing surprise.that the NRC copy of the Aamodt motion and the copy sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Health were different.
If the NRC copy had retained the numbers of the original document, the missing pages should have been discovered aside from a comparison with another copy.
85 igk4 8M2 j
o 0
' T50 3
Subsequent to the filing of our complaint with the Justice Department, we understand that the NRC has attempted to explain the deletion of pages as due to clerical error.
This explanation was provided to various news correspondents on or around January 15, 1985 We request that this a apparent attempt to c'overup the facts of the matter be investigated.
We understand that the NRC has claimed that our motion was provided on both sides of each page and that its clerks erred in providing CDC with a single side.
In the first place, our motion was served on the NRC with a single printed side for each page.
Secondly, even if both sides of each page were used in the original document, the omission of the backside of each page would not have caused the deletions which were present in the copy NRC supplied CDC.
We.would appreciate an acknowledgement concerning
. the receipt of our complaint, the memorandum of January 15, 1985 and enclosure, and this letter.
Sinherely yours, th s
Marjo 16 M.
modt htL/ t t L/Iku Norman 0. Aamodt cc:
William French Smith Chief Criminal Division e
e e
0 9
0
- -.