More info on the COE Rick Duty

[tkwalker]

Wade,



I believe your letter to LTC DeLapp, spotlights the Corps’ intentional lack of transparency, and their moves to avoid the consultations that you point to. (ER 1130-2-520, 10-2, e.) The Corps’ actions of recent months may speak to new tactics; new strategies on the part of the civilian opposition. By selectively referencing passages of internal orders and their dutiful obligations to execute them, and circumventing passages that support input by affected local civilians, the Corps again shows their disregard for the tenets of separation of powers. The Corps thumbs their nose at the most fundamental elements of the Code of Federal Regulations, and continues their attempts – apparently at every level - to out-maneuver the legislators with each passing week. Maybe its time for us to think differently.



Bless our legislators from both sides of the aisle, for the decidedly clear path they’ve defined. We could ask little more of them to this point. But, it could be a very long trek to the end. And, facing the matter-of-fact historical stats, the vast majority of bills introduced in either house fall out of the processes that see them to fruition. I would forward the notion that the cause now needs a Sugar Daddy. A well schooled attorney would now be very helpful. A legal brief needs to be written that clearly outlines the Corps’ overt willingness to ignore federal law, manipulate its internal regulations, usurp its authority over civilian rule, and deceive the people it was intended to serve. That brief needs to be presented to a federal court, and seek an injunction to stop the Corps in its tracks. It should require the Corps to follow the letter and the spirit of the law, and its own internal regulations. The Sugar Daddy, could be the lawyer him/herself, acting pro bono. It could be a corporate attorney, on loan by one of the huge companies who have a significant stake in the outcome. Daddy could come in the form a sizable donation to a law firm by one of the affected businesses, or a lobby coalition, or Political Action Committee. (The PAC would take some time,organization, leadership and funding to legally set up).



The only hole that I see (again I confess that I don’t understand the law) is my understanding that the brief should present strategic implications or rationale from both viewpoints. I sure as hell don’t see the Corps’ rationale as of yet, but highly suspect that there’s some prize money at the end of this rodeo. (A contract award, a post retirement job; something that can easily blend into that which is legal.)



If any of you know an attorney who would consult pro bono, or otherwise draw a saber and lead the charge, now may be a good time to chat. If you know of a big business, association, or federation with a legal staff, maybe they have a “loaner program.”



In closing – I’m disappointed that nothing has been heard from ASA Darcy,in the aftermath of her meeting with Senator Alexander. Beyond the disappointment, it raises the hackles of my dark side intuition, and fuels the conspiracy theory that I so desperately want to avoid.



Just some post–overly flu medicated thoughts...





Rick Duty

Gallatin, TN






From: Wade White



Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:48 AM

To: undisclosed-recipients:

Subject: New Letter to Delapp




As it is stated in ER 1130-2-520 and in the Operational management plan at Lake Barkley, they are to involved our federal, state and local agencies in any team they set up which we believe one was set up in jan 2013 or when a change is made to the OMP.


To date no contact to me to work on this. So attached is a letter explaining our involvement is per policy. Thanks


--


WADE WHITE

LYON COUNTY JUDGE EXECUTIVE
We are open for business
www.lyoncountybusiness.com