|
get into this discussion at that time because I was still hopeful that we would be able to
<br />reach resolution on the issues that they had raised. I still am but, unfortunately, we have
<br />not be able to accomplish that yet. But I didnÓt certainly, I felt that IÓve made every effort
<br />to not advocate our right to challenge this issue at that time. And, in fact, I recall
<br />Mr. Moore saying that, ÐWell, there was a defect but that there was a provision in the
<br />rules that if both sides waived that,Ñ and I made very sure that I did not waive my
<br />objection to that rule.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any question to Mr. Mooers? Commissioner
<br />Graham?
<br />GRAHAM:I certainly will not take issue of what youÓre saying here,
<br />Mr. Mooers. And, as you say, you were very clear that youÓre not representing as legal
<br />counsel. I do remember when, and I have in my minutes here, that Mr. Moore indicated
<br />that his sense was that you had no objection to the contested case. And I asked if you had
<br />adversity to it and all I can say is you didnÓt contradict us, but you never made any
<br />representation as to whether it was appropriate or not appropriate, or anything like that.
<br />So I certainly can -.
<br />MOOERS:ThatÓs correct.
<br />GRAHAM:I certainly go along with what you said here in that respect.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Mr. Vitousek, go ahead.
<br />VITOUSEK:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly. You know, and
<br />th
<br />point out that what was served on the, what was given to the Commission on July 25
<br />was a facsimile signature. IÓm not even sure that complies with the rules. I mean, what
<br />he said is that somebody somewhere in Canada faxed a piece of paper to him and he
<br />submitted it; and, so, you know, thatÓs another issue. I mean,
<br />thereÓs a facsimile signature, thereÓs no provision in your rules that allows facsimile
<br />signatures; and thereÓs absolutely nothing to authenticate the signature, you know. So
<br />weÓre at a situation where anybody could scribble anything on a piece of paper and send
<br />it in and youÓre just going to sit back and say, ÐWell, gee, if it wouldnÓt really hurt
<br />anybody, then, well, sure, weÓll give Òem standing,Ñ you know. And the reason you have
<br />rules is to require that a certain level of planning and rigor and caution go into requesting
<br />a contested case hearing, which is going to take a lot of your time and lot of money. And,
<br />you know, they want people to have to think about it a little bit before-hand and enough
<br />so that they actually have to go to a notary, which takes about five minutes, and
<br />authenticate their signature. You know, this is your rule. IÓm not, you know, this is your
<br />rule, this is your form. This is the rule you adopted, this is the form you prescribed. And
<br />now youÓre saying, ÐOh, gee, well, maybe we wonÓt require it,Ñ you know; and thatÓs
<br />really your choice, you know. But is the rule now that it doesnÓt need to be notarized?
<br />You know -. Or is it, gee, if itÓs okay, if Mr. Tsukazaki says itÓs okay, then itÓs, because I
<br />found somebody in Canada that would sign it, itÓs okay? And all weÓre saying is the rule
<br />is the rule, please apply it. It has absolute material implications because it delays by
<br />8
<br />
<br />
|