WIX Archives
Re: Devastator Recovery and US Navy
Posted by Tony on Fri Dec 21, 2001 09:28:40 AM
In reply top Re: Devastator Recovery and US Navy posted by JohnH on Fri Dec 21, 2001 05:23:08 AM
and once again, another person hectors and badgers and browbeats a Navy Person, over the same aircraft, over and over again.
Why has no one requested a forum with the USN. My own experience, with the Military, suggests that they will talk to you, on a contentious issue, if, they are accorded the proper respect, and I'm sory, but dealing with an institution like the Navyu, does require patience, there is no fast track.
Yes, we know that there policy appears to be "rot and be damned" but, only because, as far as they are concerned, it looks like the easiest option, bearing in mind the flak they're getting.
It appears, the root cause of this fiasco, was the unauthorised raising of an F4F, after the Navy agreed to it's raising, but on their (at the time) reasonable terms. The "Museum" concerned, didn't agree, were told leave it alone then, but still went ahead and raised it, because qv. "We just couldn't help ourselves" They knew what would happen, but hoped to legally fenagle their way out of the mess they created. They then stand back, wring their hands, and say, "Oh look how unreasonable the USN are", without ever mentioning the fact, they caused the mess in the first place.
As in England, just because an aircraft, is "struck off charge" by the Parent , Navy/RAF/Army, it still remains a Crown asset or possession, until the Crown relenquishes ownership of it.
That is the root of the law, and you do not "flip the bird" at an organisation, that can change the government of a foreign land, without breaking a sweat.
Granted, their attitude does seem selfish and petty, but when you;ve had the likes of Greg Olsen, sending u letters, and getting their congressmen involved, and various other "salvors" doing the same, then, I am afraid, you are going to have a fortress mentality
just my 2 euros worth
Tony
: 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 un
: able to comment.
: The persons to whom I said CAPT Evans "farmed out your que
: stions" were those shown in your cc's with the exception o
: f Mr. Miller who we did not have as a POC at that time. My
: terminology was not correct. He forwarded the questions t
: o 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 jus
: t how it sets policy. The above e-mail was sent me in resp
: onse to a second request for information, as detailed in o
: r 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 backgrou
: nd-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 ult
: imately to have been sold? (If no payment was expected, wh
: y the "demil mix-up," ref. Xxxxx's fax?)
: 2) How are Navy policies on disposition of abandoned asset
: s set? How can they be changed? (Does it take an Act of Co
: ngress to set the policy; or is disposition left up to eac
: h Service branch; or is the treatment of such property lef
: t to the DoD?) [This question refers to the website change
: s, specifically, regarding "abandonment," cited in the Xxx
: xxx/Yyyyyy exchanges.]
: 3) Assuming the Navy ultimately thwarts Champlin's plans t
: o 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 Ev
: ans 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 lef
: t again for Japan regarding the Ehime Maru negotiations.
: He is just back and here is the point of contact for all i
: nquiries 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 ques
: tions I'm asking that shouldn't be shrouded in mystery, si
: nce 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 le
: arn their status, he left again for Japan regarding the Eh
: ime Maru negotiations." When I called Captain Evans over t
: wo 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 g
: iven the royal runaround?
: Since he "farmed out" my questions, have any answers sprou
: ted yet? When might I expect a reply? Who is going to chec
: k on that; or can you let me know to whom my questions wer
: e "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," an
: d I was asked to e-mail him.)
: Please refer to my questions numbered 2,3, and 4: [I repea
: ted them for her]
: Question #2 is a policy question. Policy shouldn't be chan
: ging to suit the case; therefore, it is not a question tha
: t should be ignored, due to the litigation. Are there a cu
: rrent 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, an
: d since the Navy says it wants the machine, when, after th
: e case is settled, would the Navy begin its recovery?
: Question #4 is totally unrelated to the litigation. I unde
: rstand 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 que
: stions have no bearing on the litigation, you should feel
: free to answer them.
:
: Well, readers, we tried. History is being allowed to vanis
: h in this turf war.
: We have no beef with the Navy itself. Three of our questio
: ns could easily be answered, without having any impact on
: the case, but the Navy won't answer us. If you're Navy, un
: derstand that we applaud your work; it's just the bureaucr
: ats and lawyers that are stinking up your once-clean and p
: roud branch of the service. We had heard the stone wall wa
: s up on this one -- now we're getting convinced.
: Apparently there are a whole lot of salvors and museums th
: at are pretty fed up with the Navy's treatment of "its" pr
: operty. History is rotting away, all over the world, and t
: he Navy, more than the other branches, wants it to rot. Th
: ey don't have the money, manpower, or time to do the prese
: rvation, 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 (forme
: rly) well-regarded civic organizations, through their expl
: oitation 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 Na
: vy. 'If the Navy can't bring them up, no one can,' is thei
: r 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
:
: