ML20116M318
| ML20116M318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1992 |
| From: | Dow R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#492-13341 92-668-01-CPA, 92-668-1-CPA, CPA, NUDOCS 9211200180 | |
| Download: ML20116M318 (19) | |
Text
-
/334/
3 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA dp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pCEO
-9 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
M0'J 10 N92
~I I
if; ' gh w H O
Before Administrative Judges:
5gcy.NRC f j.
Morton B.
Margulies, Chairman
,',9f,,(Q{
f Dr. James H. Carpenter
' f, g
Dr. Peter S.
Lam v
~
D Docket No. 50-446-CPA In the Matter of G
Q ASLBP No. 92-668-01-CPA Texas Utilities Electric 0
Company Q
(Construction Permit 9
Amendment)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric 0
Station, Unit 2) 5 MOTION FOR REHEARING BY R.
MICKY DOW, PETITIONER Comes now, R.
Micky Dow, hereinafter Movant, and files this, his Motion For Rehearing, of a Memorandum and Order, issued October 19, 1992, in the above-styled and numbered cause, and in support of which would show:
I.
BACKROUND In a Memorandum and Order dated and served September 11, 1992, the Board established a schedule for amending the petitions, by all parties seeking intervention and hearings, the same being for the purpose of supplementing them with contentions for litigation at a hearing.
The filing date was set at "no later than October 5, 1992."
On October 5, 1992, both petitioners, Sandra Long Dow dba Dis-posable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, and R.
Micky Dow, filed their Motion For Extension of Time, wherein they requested the Board grant them a thirty day extension of time to file their a-MOTION FOR REHEARING BY R.
MICKY DOW, PETITIONER 9211200180 921110
)
PDR ACDCK 05000446 G
PDR l
l -_. - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - _ _ - - -
_------_J
t mended petition, and assert their contentions; and, on October 7, 1992, the Board issued an order requiring all responsive pleadings to that motica to be mailed, no later than, October 3, 1992.
On October 19, 1992, the Board issued the Memorandum and Order, the subject of this motion, wherein the Board stated, on page 4, there-of "For movants to prevail they have the burden of showing good cause.
It is a burden they have not met.",
and Jid, thereby, deny the motion for extension of time.
II.
AUGUMENTS A.
The Board Erred In Anser. tion That Good Showing Not Met.
This novant's statements that he was confined, from September 3, 1992, until, on or about, October 3, 1992, is more than a sufficient showing of good cause for his inability to make timely filing.
The fact that the order establishing a schedule for filings was not is-sued until September 11, 1992 is prima facie that this movant could not have known about the same.
As movant stated in his original mo-tion, his glace of confinement was Hugo, Colorado.
He further averred that he was denied communication with his spouse.
Hov, then, could he have known of an order, by this Board, which would have, certainly, been sent to his residence in Pennsylvania, ano not Colorado?
As was also stated, in his request for extension, when ne did learn of the.
I scheduling ordor, he immediatelv responded with the only mannar of pleading the circumstances allowed, that of a request for extension of l
time.
It is of no consequence, or merit, whether this mova'it was pre-cluded fcom the knowledge of the scheduling order by virtue of his be-i MOTION FOR REllEARING BY H.
MICKY DOWn PETITIONER l l
l l
t l'
ing confined in the Linco'4 County Jc'1, in Hugo, Colorado; Walter Reed Hospital, in Washington, D.C.,
or, lost,_in Yellowstone National Park.
What is of consequence, and certainly has merit,
's that this movant had no knowledge ot' the scheduling order, due to circumstances of which he had no prior knowledge, or control, that prevented him from being at his residence, in Pennsylvania; and, in addition, was not able to have contact with anyone, at that residence, to advise him of the receipt o r'
- he same.
What would follow, then, is that,-what the petitioner w6s unaware of, he could not adhere tc.
It would also folicw, that, if one petitioner had all the papers, notes, and mat-erials with him, then his co-petitioner was powerless to do arything on her own, as was clearly pled in the request for extension.
It then would seem, that the most logical, and only practical filing that could be made, when first finding out about the schedule giving the October 5 date as the final date, ar.d only discovering that on Octo-ber 3, 1992, would be to file-a request for extension.
The key point of merit is established by public record, court transcript aad-these petitioners averments in their request.
If the Board finds these to be lacking in credibility, and or truth, then-an order to show cause, not denial is more in order, and should have issued.
H. The Response By The Utility Ludicrous, Barely Worthy Of'A Reply.
s reference was made_io it, by the-Board, the movant will make a minimul reply to the response of Texas Utilities.
The ver; wording and styling of the pleadings submitted by Texas Utilities constitutes an ever downward spiraling in credibility and demonstrates, not only_
a decided lack of professionalism, but tends to underscore this mov-ant's primary contention that they lack the competence and capability MOTION FOR REHEARIN", lY_R. MICKY DOW, PETITIONER -
~
I to operate the'CPSES facility.
One newspaper account, of this movant, described him as a ' skinny, one-legged, tattoed, Indian, " outlaw" at-
'torney.
How can one, described thusly, be such an apparent threat to a multi-million dollar corporation, and in such a way as to-evoke the detailed, and theatrical search of the English language, for a differ-ent set of adj ectives, each and every time, with which to attempt to have a discrediting influence over these petitioners' pleadings?
Let un please recall, with a degree of accuracy, exactly WHAT was gled in the Request For Extension of Time.
This movant has " aver in-dicated, mentioned, and, more accurately, alleged, any mhnner of
" scheme", but, rather, stated "The suspect conditions are clear-ly indicative of interference.
and to editorialize an aver-ment to preclude that it was made in an unsubstantiated manner, by its very author, is not, at all, adherent to the rules of good pleading.
Lines 3-6, of page 3, of the Request For. Extension of Time, clearly, again, show, that it was pled in specifics that "the parties could not-confer with each other and because all other materials were with R.
Micky Dow, nothing could be prepared or filec prior to this date.".
Is it to be believed that, because this movant failed to identify the other "garty" as Mrs. Dow, "the utility claims that nothing (emphasis-added) was shown.
"?
This utility is doing nothing less than-
.eroving movant/ petitioners' case for them by their'very conduct, and movant would ask when some of the very terminology that is used as an abuse, by this utility, will be directed towarC them, by way of dis-
.ciplinary action?
This movant prays the Board not treat the foregoing-as simple argument, but take a.hard look at the style itself, its man-ner, and more particularly, its designLand intent.
MOTION FOR REHEARING BY R.
MICKY DOW _
W
C.
Only Credible Argument Submitted By' Petitioners For Intervention.
It is imperative that the Board take j udicial notice of the de-
+
tail and impact of Petitioners' For Interventions' response in sup-port of-the request for extension of time, and to look at it from an angle of understanding the reaction of Texas Utilities.
The entire history of this matter has been the very personal, orchestrated, at-tempt to preclude, at whatever cost, the parties Disposable Workers of Comancho Peak Steam Electric Station, and R.
Micky Dow, from ever achieving a forum whereby they can introduca tb r evidence they have accumulated, as they know what its result will be, It is equally important to remember that this movant is not an attorney, is an indigent, and has attempted to adhere _to the rules, scheduling, and all other requirements in as timely and professional mannet as possible; and, that, although, the required contentions were not filed, as he did not find out about the sched"le until two days before it was exhausted, he did, with a great 1 of difficulty, get a logical request for extension filed in a timely fashion.
By NRC regulation, the construction permit is not suspended by any challenge to it, construction continues, and, therefore, a_short delay.is not, and cannot be construed, to be prej udicial to any but the petitioning parties,-who have stated they have no argument with delay.
In most manners of litigation, one continuance is granted as a matter of right ugon_any reasonable request.
This-is the first and only such request.
D.
The Responso Of The NRC Staff Is Also Without Merit Or Logic.
It was, again, clearly stated in the Request For Extension of Time that all of the papers, materials, evidence, and equipment, were with Mr. Daw, and were, therefore, unavailable to Mrs. Dow.
The word all MOTION FOR REl(EARING BY R.
MICKY DOW, PETITIONER 4
4.
is self-explanatory, in itself; and one would thinM it to be, at least in this case, synonymous with only.
The statement "she fails to ex-
-plain how she could not otherwise obtain the knowledge necessary to prepare the documents to support the petition.
,-in view of the very nature of both the circumstances and the contents of the pleading 3
itself, are not only ludicrous, but preposterous.
It is idiotic to 3sume, much less infer, that these parties, in' view of their well documented record of relentless litigation in th s matter, have merely just sat back and "let the clock tick away" with-out making every effort to overcome a situation which was not of their design or orchestration, and certainly not under their control, which caused them to file for a request for extension.
E.
Irrefutable Statement Of Fact Not To De Confused With Narrative.
These petitioners, and particularly this movant, based their_re.
quest for an extension of time on one primary factor, and one factor alone.
This movant averred that he was arrested in Limon, Colorado on September 3, 1992, held in the Lincoln County Jail, in Hugo, Colorado, until October 3,_1992, without access to-communications with his: wife and co yetitioner, access to any manner of legal materials,' method of preparation, and, even, the mails. _He-also stated that he was separ-ated from his evidenciary materials, case notes, and equipment.
Any other substance or matter pled, was done so hypothetically and was clearly indicated as such.
Movants personal feelings and allegations as to the cause of his confinement are matters which can be addressed at a:later time,-but in-no way change or alter the-facts as, stated hereinabove.
This is not a lack of credibility,- but, apparently-the failure to-understand the obvious.
As a mere aside, to_the statement
! MOTION FOR REHEARING BY R.
MICKY EOW, PETITIONER,
on page 5, which states, "Other petitioners [quite ambiguous, as there are but one other set of petitioners) have met the.0ctober 5'fil-ing date and none have reported any bizarre treatment.", can be;qualif-ied in several respects, first with the phrase, "in this instance as a
L this movant is quite sure Mr. Macktal would argue the point, and this entire matter is filled with the mistreatment of parties; however, for-tunately for them, none were arrested, as was this movant.
An arrest is most definately, on its face, not bizarre.
The Board is respectfully requested to search the logic of para-graph 2 on page 5, and reminded of the attention given to it herein-above.
If this movant was arrested and confined in Colorado from the 3rd of September until the 3rd of October, 1992, and not allowed.suf-ficient communication, how could he be aware of a scheduling order mailed to his home in Pennsylvania after the lith of Septenber?
In further question of that paragraph, the Board is respectfully remind-ed that October 3, 1992 is a Saturday, and, October 5,.1992 is a Mon-day.
How can this movant provide, other than by averment, probative evidence of a j ail confinement, in the span of one eight hour-business day, without the benefit of subpoena, which consists of records which have either not yet been transcribed by the court, or jail records which have not yet been written or filed.
Once, again, an order to show cause would have been more appropriate, rather than' outright dis-missal and/or denial of the request.
F.
Delay Shown To Be Immaterial By Board's Very Action.
Petitioners, and, more particularly, this movant, made a request for an extension of-time, in order to finish preparing and submit-their supplemental pleading to this Board.
The' suggested length of time in MOTION FOR RE; FEARING BY R.
MICKY DOW, PETITIONER,. -.
that request was for thirty days, and the Board, certainly, had the discretionary power to shorten or lengthen it accordingly, in the ab-sense of any specific showing by the petitioners for a need of exact-ly thirty days.
As has been shown, by this movant and the other peti-tioners, no prejudice will result from granting the request.
What is further proof that no prejudice will result is that it took this Board 14 days to render its decision on the request, which is fully one-half the period of time requested.
Movant would respectfully ask, why not render a decision granting five days from the issuance of the memoran-dum and order?
III.
CONCLUSIONS This movant would submit that, in fact, a good cause showing for the granting of an extension of time has been given to this Board.
The P
movant would further submit that the granting of the extension will in no way cause prej udice to the utility or the NRC, as it can have no effect upon continued construction of Unit 2, at CPSES.
The other pe-titioners to this matter support the request, and they are they only ocher parties who might be rejudiced by the extension.
e Surely this Board does not, in good conscience, believe that the gresent memorandum and arder would, or could, ever survive a review by the appellate court.
There are some very serious discretionary and due grocess concerns herein.
Neither the utility, or the NRC, have in-troduced one fact which would refute anything alleged, and/or averred by these etitioners and, more particularly, this movant.
In keeping e
with the presumption of truthfulness, the precepts of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is far more viable, more practi-
^
MOTION FOR REHEARING BY R.
MICKY DOW, PETITIONE_f{ i L___
cal, and equitable, that, if the Board does entertain serious doubts about the request for extension of time, it issue an order to show cause why same should not be granted, and let the parties submit their supportive materials.
To render a decision, which would-be disposa-tive of these partys' participation, based upon nothing more than the theatrical blustering of the utility, is, at best, arbitrary, and can-not survive review.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this movant would respectfully r e.3 u e s t a period of ten days, in which to file a supplemental pleading to the original petition.
In addition, movant would hereby attach and incorporate by reference, the same as if fully copied and set forth at length, a copy of the statement prepared for both the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Justice, with regard to the-in-cident which caused the filing of the original request, for reference by this Board.
Respectfully submitted,
\\.
ppo'se R.
MICKY DOW, P.O.
Box 875 Monroeville,-Pennsylvania 15146 (412) 823-9043 Movant s
MOTION FOR REHEARING BY R.
MICKY DOW, PETITIONER,
1 STATENENT OF RICHARD E.
DOW, JR. aka R. MICKY DOW P.O.
BOX 875 MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146 Telephone 412-823<9043 D.O.B. 11-23-47 SSN 390-44-6170 7
On or about the early morning of September 3, 1992, I was tray-eling, from Gecrgetown, Colorado, to Lawton, Oklahoma, in my 1977-Dodge van, with a temporary transfer registration taped to the right front vindshield, in plain sight.
I had all the transfer papers, proof of chnership, and registration with me, and all were in my name, alone.
I had a valid Texas Driver's License, number 14670299, and I had one passenger with me, a ROBERT PAUL LONG, of Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvknia.
I had purchased the van, two days prior, from a toe Zang, in Greenup, Illinois.
Besides my entire personal vardrobe, my artificial leg, and other personal materials, my van contained all of_my office equipment, and, most particularly, a vast portion of evidenciary materials, written pleadings, case' notes, memoranda; and 2 REELS OF AUDIO LOGGERTAFE CON-TAI l;AG CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS FROM THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION LOCATED IN GLEN ROSE, fEXAS; AELATING TO MATTERS CURRENTLY PENDING IN HORE THAN ONE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, TWO U.S. COURTS OF AP-PEALS, THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, AND THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.. The bulk of this material is of national safety significance, and could, easily, be cendidered cf defense significance.
I had gone to Georgetown, Colorada, to meet with a man who had i-dentified himself *e as.
dNRY N. MULVIHILL an attorney.
Al-though I believed tria purpose of the trip, av.d the meeting, vere for-an entirely different, although collateral, purpose; it appeared, af-ter our first, and onJy: personal: meeting, that his tent was, in D
{
'\\JOLA31 STATEMENT,0F RICHARD _E.
DCW, JR. \\
c
~
7
--g<,
,y
,,,,n.,-
,~-,v-.
_ _ ~. _ __
fact, to coerce, or in some other manner, intimidate me to " scrap" all of my work on t";a Comancho Peak matter, to the Department of Energy, in order to assure the awarding of the Monitored Retrievable Storage facility, which meant a huge monetary reward, in his interpretation.
I became concerned, and suspicious that this was some sort of 11-legal, and certainly improper, arrangement and procedures and I decid-ed to immediately disassociate myself from it.
Mr. Mulvihill had got-ten rooms for myself and my passenger at the Georgetown Motor Inn, and it was from there that I called my wife and told her I ves going di-rectly to Lawton, Oklahoma, to the Fort Sill Apache, and make full dis-closure to them of what I believed they were being set up for.
I also informed her that I would be stopping for fuel in Limon, Colorado, a point approximately half-way to the Kansas State Line, and that I would call her again from there.
I left Georgettyn, Colorada, shortly after midnight, September 3, 1992.
When I exited, at the Rip Griffin Truck Stop, from I-70, and ap-proached the stop sign at the end of the ramps there was, what looked like a patrol car, parked in the ditch, directly around the coi'ner, facing in the direction of the traffic flow, at right angles to my van.
There was no apparent reason for this car to be parked in this location at this angle, as the only thing behind him was the bridge across the highway, and the only thing on the other side was a ramp from the vest bound lane, and a ramp to the vest bound lane, no, traffic flow.
The pa+rol car had a silver star insignia on the driver's door, and its parking lights were on.
I turned the corner, passed the patrol cur, and tra-approxi-mately 150 yards before turning into the truck sto Although here STATEMENT OF RICHARD E.
DOW, JR. _C
/
4 was no license plate on the rear of my vehicle, no movement came from the patrol car.
I parked, nose in, to the front of the truck stop res-t taurant, and we vent insido, only long enough for a cup of coffee and a quick phone call home, i
We came out, got in the van, and, as fuel was cheaper across the street, I exited Rip Griffins, slowly, and crossed the street to a t
copnvenience store.
The patrol car'had not mcVed, and we eve 1.
t amen, ted to each other, at the time, that this car was apparently votiing.
?
for someone.
It made no attempt to approach us, or move.in any~othes manner.
We fueled, checPed the oil, and washed the vindows, all total spending approximately 15-20 minutas at this location, with, again.
no approach by the patrol car.
As we came onto the roadway, heading for the east-bound ramp to the interstate, I dropped in bnhind a semi, heading in the same direc-tion.
We sere traveling at approximately S-10 miles per hour, and as he put his turn signal on, so did I.
I was approaching the patrol car slowly enough that the sticker on the windshield was plainly visible.
- Yet, as I was *1most parallel to him, he began to move forward and bo-gin a turn to come into place behind me.
He actua11y'had to brake in his turning process, as I was going so slow, he almost connected with my rear bumper.
My passenger.cVen commented,-"Something's wrong here,
-this guy is following ual"-
I stopped at the stop-sign, _the patrol car immediately behind me.
I_made my turn, and told my. passenger " Keep your eyes on him andflet me know: the 'second he puts : his lights on.
This;is a' set-up and I. don't1 vant to be shot for failing to stop."
We vent all the;vay down-the-ramp, entered the highway, and, sudden 1, my radar tector vent off, STATEMENT OF EICHARD E.
- DOW, JR..-3--
MO.
7-y y v c
r
..,,,m_.
6
.,-..wer-,
_.-w-m y6 --
.,..,.--,,.m.-,-m-...!-,--,--
-,-a
--e..,
and my passenger said, "There's the lights!".
I immediately put my right turn signal on, left the roadway, stopped the engine, and put my hands on top of the steering wheel, in plain sight.
We had trav-eled approximately 5 mile, from the beginning of the ramp.
I watched the patrol car pull up, right on my bumper, in the side mirror, and read City of Limon, when the man got out of the car.
He had his hand on his side arm, and I was orally saying the Lord's Pray-er as he walked up the side of my van.
I did not believe he was the police, and honestly believed I was about to be shut in the heed.
I turned my head, so that I would be able to see him to describe him if I were lucky enough to survive, and, as he got even with my vindow, I said " Officer, if you stopped me because of no license plate, there is a sticker on the windshield in front, and I have all the papers, I am transporting this vehicle."
He said nothing to me, but continued around the front of the van, gave the quf;kest of looks at the paper in the vindov, and came back.
I had reached up on the dash, and got the envelope with the title and registration to show him when he got back.
I handed them out the vin-dov, and said "Here are all the ownership papers."
He barely looked at them, and then spoke for the first time, simply saying "Have you got a driver's license?"
I said yes, and produced it.
He took it, looked at it for a minute, and then said "I'll be right back."
He then vent back to his car, hnd -ot in.
My passenger caid, "this is a set-up, they were waiting for you."
I said "I know, it's either the NRC, the utilit., or Wackenhut, but I think they've got me this time."
He asked "what will they do to me?"
I said "Nothing, it's me they want, I'm dead meat, bu they won't dare h
/)
\\
./ /-.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD E.
DOW, JR..
,r 1
do anything to you, they would never be able to explain it.
Just valt if he doesn't get right back out of his car, there vill be another one pull up in a minute and they'll come and say they are taking me to jail, and I'll disappear."
He said, "they can't do that, we've been stopped three other times and they checked you out and there's no var-rants or anything on you."
I said, "I know, but just watch.
Please tell Sandra I Lovo Her."
Suddenly another car came up the shoulder and pulled into the ditch, alongside the van, and that man got out and approached the pas-senger side of the van.
The first man came back up my side and.said "I'm going to t4yu to arrest you and take you with me, there is a var-rant on you from Fort Worth."
I walked back to the first car, and thought it really strange that he opened the front passenger door.
I thought it even more thsn strange that this door had NO INSIGNIA on it at all.
He handcuffed my hands in front of me, which I really thought was strange.
He and the other man did a lot of talking and walking back and forth.
I sat there for at least 10 minutes and then they came and asked me if I wanted to release the vehicle to the passenger, and I said yes, and could I be allowed to talt with him for last instructions.
I signed what looked like a release form, and then instructed my passenger, very clearly, that if all else failed, take the van back to Georgetown, but no mat-ter what do not release anything frem inside of it, or it, unless he had specific orders from my wife, as this was all important Comanche Peak material, and of federal importance.
He agreed.
The first 02n then got in the car with me, and the only comment he made to me at all was "Somebody in Texas vants you real real ind."
STATEMENT OF RICHARD E.
DOW. JR. W-
-_ ~
a I was very scared, but when the car started going down what looked like a back country road, with no lights, I became terrified.
I espec-ted the car to stop and I would be shot, or else I would be pushed out going down the road to make it look like I tried to jump.
The man with me said nothing, and I couldn't talk.
I did not believe, at any time, that I was vitl. police officers, and when we got to our destination, I did not believe it to be a jail.
Imme_lately upon entering this building, I told the officer there that I wanted to speak to the F.B.I.
immediately, that I believed my life was in danger, and that I was carrying important federal evidence and I needed my van protected immediately.
I requested, specifically, protection under the Federal Witness Protection Program.
Nothing was said to me.
I was given only a pair of coveralls to wear, no shoes, and taken to an isolation room and locked in.
In the next several hours, on two more occasions, I made the same requests to speak to the F.B.I.
and for protection for myself and the evidence, and no response vas made.
I was not finger-printed or photographed, nor given shoes.
The first two times I was taken to court, I was chained heavily to my crutches in such a manner that I barely could walk, and not even given assistance to sit down in a chair, but, rather, had to fall into it.
In the next 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> I received 3 aessages from jail personnel to " call my lawyer" as this Mulvihill man was posing as my attorney.
In the first two conversations with him, he was merely intimidating, telling me I better keep my mouth shut, that he was working on get-ting the problem in Texas resolved and that when it was cleared up everything would be just fine for me, but he vould post any bond r
i n)
STATEMENT OF RICHARD E.
DOW, JR. \\
\\
._i,
,m f
I would have to be content to sit there.
In the third call, ho made threats which I clearly felt were against my life and safety, and I attempted to report them to j ail personnel, again repeating my re-quest for the F.B.I.,
and protection.
All that happened was that the Sheriff interviewed me, said he vould get some agents out to see me, and then I was suddenly moved into an area where there were other pris-oners, and given a shoe.
I requested to file charges for the theft of my van and its contents, repeated the importance of the contents, and all of it was ignored.
The next morning, Saturday, September 5, I was called out and tak-en to an interview room, whero the Under-Sheriff introduced himself to me.
He asked me if my life had been threatened and I said yes.
He asked me by whom and I told him the man Mulvihill.
He asked me if any other prisoners or jail personnel had made any threats.
I said abso-lutely not.
He told me that the F.B.I. had contacted his office and told him that my wife had made repeated calls to them and stated that both other prisoners and jail personnel were threatening my life and that they recommended that I be put in some manner of segregation.
I told him that this was absolutely false, that I knew for a certainty that my wife had made no such statements, nor would have any need to 4
make auch a scatement, an'" that I believed the request to have me put in segreagation was teing made to isolate me from telephone use.
I
-p;eaded, strenun';ely, that I be allowed to remain in population, tel-ling wi.e Under-Sheriff that this was the only place I felt safe as I was surrounded with vitnescas.
The end result vna that the only way I would be allowed to stay in population was to sign a Release of Lia-bility to the Lincoln County Sheriff's epar e
with regard to any,
\\
if,/
s STATLMr".T OF RICHARD E. DOW, JR.
~7-
=4-A
thing that might happen to me while I sas in their custody.
I did this as well as giving a complete statement with regard to the inci-dent, in which I made the formal allegation that I believed the F.B.I.
had made material falso statements to the Sheriff's department.
I was promised a copy of that statement, but never given one.
After an interview with a member of the F.B.I in which I was as-sured that there would be an investigation, and, efter an interview with a local investigator sent by the District Attorney, for-whom I did a 20 page statement and was assured there would be an investiga-tion, as well as copies of any reports, I have seen no reports, nor any results of any investigations.
When I filed a formal petition with t e Lincoln County District Court in an attempt for a court order for charges including theft of the vehicle, transportation of stolen prop-erty, tampering with avidence, and intimidation of a witness, the Lin-coin County District Attorney told the court that the F.B.I. had ruled it to be a federal matter and were investigating it, and the court rut-ed accordingly pursuant that arguments while the F.B.I. has told my spouse that they have no jurisdiction, that it is not a federal matter and they will neither investigate or bring charges.
In the interrim I have had a vehicle stolen, with its contents of evidence and materials relative to major federal matters inside.
The chain of custody has been broken, and, more than likely, rendered this materiti inadmissible in court.
This material has been transported across state lines, and the life and testimony of its owner threatened.
Yet the F.B.I.
tells me there is no federal basis for jurisdiction.
I would respectfully ask that my name not be confused with the name of Karen Silkwood, I am still alive, and I am not thioug STATEMENT OF RICHARD E.
DOW, JR..
/
1
Not only was I in custody four days before I "as ever booked in-to this jail; and, not only vas it fourteen days before I ever saw an attorney; but any telephone number I tried to dial on the prisotter telephone system was blocked preventing my access after it had been used more than once.
This happened to no other inmate, nor did it happen on any other telephone.
Except, that on one occasion, when a-nother inmate attempted to help me through his home phone and the aveliability of three-way calling, his access was then denied to his home phone.
I was arrested, in Colorado, on a Fugitive warrant, but have nev-er seen one, or any order of confinement.
purportedly, the charge in Texas is Theft Over 750 Under 20,000 for which I am on bond.
I have never failed to appear for any noticed hearir.g, nor violated the con-ditions of my bond, which only require appearance at all noticed hear-ings.
I am not charged with jumping bond, interstate flight, or any manner of escape, and no formal bond revocation has ever occured, yet I am to appear for extradition proceedings.
I would ask FOR WHAT?
Am 6
I entitled to bond, pursuant the Constitution, or not.
I have only touched on the high notes of this matter.
It goes auch deeper, and is far more complicated, even to include my being a witness to using the former Secretary of State as a tool for revenge.
I formally request the full and complete investigation of this matter.
I have made thie statement voluntarily with no promise of any manner or threat being made to me.
I aver that the statements and allegations contained herein are true and correct to the best of my memory, knos-ledge and belief upon penalty for perjury.
DATED AND SIGNED THIS THE 19th day of October, 2.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. DOW, JR. CL,._),
3 i
1 1
e----
O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that the original of the foregoing Motion for Rehearing By R.
Micky Dow, Petitioner was telefaxed to'Emile L. Julian Chief, Docketing and Service Branch, Office of the Secretary, with the original being sent by courier and a true and correct copy sent to the arties listed belos on this the 10th day of November, 1992.
e
\\*
- N Affiant
\\
~
'~
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Morton B. Margulies, Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Peter S.. Lam Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Coman.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Irian L.
Zobler, Esquire George L.
Edgar, Esquire Michael H.
Finkelstein, Esquire Counsel for TU Electric Office of the General Counsel Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1615 L Street, N.W.,
Suite 1000 hashington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael D.
Kohn, Esjuire Counsel For Petitioners
/~ [;
Kohn, Kohn & Calaginto, P.C.
~ " '" i'f 2A 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
washington, D.C.
20001
'?-
.k 7,
,/.). '
toCAET'CD
,j W)
I"I s
. c.
~~ucurm y OwtmC
$/
d<
9'
,m a i i-
...d