WIX Archives

Re: Devastator Recovery and US Navy

Posted by JohnH on Fri Dec 21, 2001 05:23:08 AM

In reply top Devastator Recovery and US Navy posted by Paul McMillan on Fri Dec 21, 2001 04:34:40 AM

Here's Today's Ann article Dec 21:



ANN Exclusive:
Navy Builds Big Stone Wall Around Devastator
Most-Basic Questions Will Not Be Answered
Mr. Kern,
Your questions are all related to the litigation involving the airframe. We refer you to DOJ (Mr. Miller). Until the case is resolved by the judge who is presiding, we are unable to comment.
The persons to whom I said CAPT Evans "farmed out your questions" were those shown in your cc's with the exception of Mr. Miller who we did not have as a POC at that time. My terminology was not correct. He forwarded the questions to them as information items only. None of the parties will have any comments until the case is resolved.
[signed] Carolyn Alison [OJAG Public Affairs]

So we get our latest in "answers" from the Navy, about just how it sets policy. The above e-mail was sent me in response to a second request for information, as detailed in or latest article on the Devastator case ("Devastator Case Continues," 12-12-01, ANN). We published the questions we would have liked answered. One was directly related to the case; three were either peripherally related, or background-only. Is the Navy stonewalling? You be the judge.

Here are the original questions:
Specifically,
1) How was the C-130 sale/funding supposed to work? Where was the money to have gone? To whom were the airplanes ultimately to have been sold? (If no payment was expected, why the "demil mix-up," ref. Xxxxx's fax?)
2) How are Navy policies on disposition of abandoned assets set? How can they be changed? (Does it take an Act of Congress to set the policy; or is disposition left up to each Service branch; or is the treatment of such property left to the DoD?) [This question refers to the website changes, specifically, regarding "abandonment," cited in the Xxxxxx/Yyyyyy exchanges.]
3) Assuming the Navy ultimately thwarts Champlin's plans to recover the machine, when will the Navy be starting the recovery of that machine? Will there be a timetable and a performance bond, in this round of contracts?
4) What is the Navy's current plan for recovery of the TBD in Micronesia?

---and her first attempt at an answer:
Dear Mr. Kern,
Please excuse the delay in my getting back to you. CAPT Evans of our Admiralty and Maritime Law Division farmed out your inquiries to various affected parties. And about the time I was to go back to him to learn their status, he left again for Japan regarding the Ehime Maru negotiations.
He is just back and here is the point of contact for all inquiries on the TBD-1:
Press inquiries regarding the TBD case should be referred to: (name furnished)

That didn't get me anywhere, so I tried again:
Dear Ms. Alison:
Thanks for getting back to me; but there are a couple questions I'm asking that shouldn't be shrouded in mystery, since they are not in the litigation.
First, you say, "CAPT Evans of our Admiralty and Maritime Law Division farmed out your inquiries to various affected parties. And about the time I was to go back to him to learn their status, he left again for Japan regarding the Ehime Maru negotiations." When I called Captain Evans over two weeks ago, he referred me to you, his office saying he "didn't handle those types of questions." Why, then, would you refer my questions BACK TO HIM, unless I were being given the royal runaround?
Since he "farmed out" my questions, have any answers sprouted yet? When might I expect a reply? Who is going to check on that; or can you let me know to whom my questions were "farmed out," so I can follow up? It's been two weeks. (Even getting [the abovementioned contact's] E-Mail, which you did not furnish, took me fifteen minutes on hold, and finally a follow-up call. I couldn't
get through to him on the phone; he was "in a meeting," and I was asked to e-mail him.)
Please refer to my questions numbered 2,3, and 4: [I repeated them for her]
Question #2 is a policy question. Policy shouldn't be changing to suit the case; therefore, it is not a question that should be ignored, due to the litigation. Are there a current policy, and a method for amending it? If there is no policy, please say so. If you don't know, please find out.
Question #3 has no bearing on the case. Assuming the Navy can keep Champlin (or assigns) from recovering the TBD, and since the Navy says it wants the machine, when, after the case is settled, would the Navy begin its recovery?
Question #4 is totally unrelated to the litigation. I understand there are possibly two TBDs in Micronesia. What is the Navy doing about those?
Please don't make it look like the Navy doesn't care about any of the public's questions. Since three of my four questions have no bearing on the litigation, you should feel free to answer them.

Well, readers, we tried. History is being allowed to vanish in this turf war.
We have no beef with the Navy itself. Three of our questions could easily be answered, without having any impact on the case, but the Navy won't answer us. If you're Navy, understand that we applaud your work; it's just the bureaucrats and lawyers that are stinking up your once-clean and proud branch of the service. We had heard the stone wall was up on this one -- now we're getting convinced.
Apparently there are a whole lot of salvors and museums that are pretty fed up with the Navy's treatment of "its" property. History is rotting away, all over the world, and the Navy, more than the other branches, wants it to rot. They don't have the money, manpower, or time to do the preservation, recovery, and restoration that's needed, and they don't want anyone else to try. They change policies, and cover up the changes, to twist court cases their way. They exploit their "old boys' group," bringing shame on (formerly) well-regarded civic organizations, through their exploitation of their contacts in the membership.
Ships, airplanes, and countless artifacts will be forever lost, because the Navy wants to hog them all -- for the Navy. 'If the Navy can't bring them up, no one can,' is their mantra -- and, in the meantime, history is crumbling, to be lost forever. The heritage of John Paul Jones is being squandered by a tiny bunch of selfish, childish lawyers, and some brass, who 'want it all for themselves.' They won't get it, because it will disintegrate; but, by God, the public won't ever get to see it, either.
I'm ashamed that these people represent our Navy.
FMI: www.navy.mil


Follow Ups: