OBAMA’S FAMILY OWNED SLAVES

HALF-WHITE BARACK OBAMA’S FAMILY OWNED SLAVES

POSTED ON AUGUST 21, 2017 UPDATED ON AUGUST 21, 2017

 

A genealogist at the Library of Congress found out in 2008 that Barack Obama’s ancestors owned slaves.
The Chicago Tribune reported:

Many people know that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas.

But an intriguing sliver of his family history has received almost no attention until now: It appears that forebears of his white mother owned slaves, according to genealogical research and census records.

The records, which had never been addressed publicly by the Illinois senator or his relatives, were first noted in an ancestry report compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner, who works at the Library of Congress and practices genealogy in his spare time. The report, on Reitwiesner’s Web site, carries a disclaimer that it is a “first draft” –one likely to be examined more closely if Obama is nominated.

According to the research, one of Obama’s great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 census in Nelson County, Ky. The same records show that one of Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.

The Baltimore Sun retraced much of Reitwiesner’s work, using census information available on the Web site ancestry.com and documents retrieved by the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, among other sources. The records show that Overall, then 30, owned a 15-year-old black female and a 25-year-old black male, while Mary Duvall, his mother-in-law, owned a 60-year-old black man and a 58-year-old black woman.

 

Obama’s grandparents

 

Fannie Mae began its marketing efforts with Citigroup Global Markets for its fourth sale of re-performing loans

Trump approves MORTGAGE DEBT FORGIVENESS PLAN that Obama couldn’t. Performing loans sold at a loss. #Fanniegate $FNMA Fannie Mae began its marketing efforts with Citigroup Global Markets for its fourth sale of re-performing loans, or loans previously delinquent, but now performing again. Here are the details of the new pool, which includes about 11,000 loans. […]

via Fannie Mae begins marketing fourth re-performing loan sale — Deadly Clear

From Our Friends at Living Lies Weblog


URGENT REQUEST! California Court attempting to Bury Decision!!! Don’t allow Guliex v. PennyMac to go unpublished! Act Today!
7h ago

California Fifth Court of AppealsGuilexguilex v pennymac

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for courts to skirt the rules in order to protect the banks if they can get away with it. It is up to California attorneys and homeowners nationwide to contact California’s Fifth District Appellate court and request that the Guliex case be published. YOU almost didn’t have this opportunity because it appears the court attempted to end the submission window six-days early !

We need all HOMEOWNERS and FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE to HELP get this case published!

Homeowners, PLEASE write the Court at the address below TODAY (or use the template) and request that Guliex v. PennyMac be published. Attorneys and registered pro se litigants can file electronically through the court’s TrueFiling.com system.

Letters should be mailed TODAY or possibly MONDAY if you live in California to be received by the Tuesday, August 1st deadline.

Electronic filings are accepted up until Tuesday.

Originally the court had issued an order stating that no more letters requesting publication of Guliex would be accepted. Apparently after public outcry, the court clerk stated they would now accept requests to publish until Tuesday, August 1st, 2017.

On July 12th, 2017 the California Fifth Appellate Court issued an unpublished opinion in Guliex v. Pennymac Holdings, a case that may potentially benefit homeowners nationwide who are litigating illegal trustee sales and Chain of Title issues.

The Rules of the Fifth Appellate Court permit 20 days for attorneys and citizens to request publication of the case by submitting letters to the court. The court originally incorrectly listed the deadline as July 27th when the deadline should have been August 1st, 2017. Thus, the court clerk shut down requests for publication SIX days prematurely.

The Appellate court also issued the opinion that the Guliex decision, “does not establish a new rule of law, nor does it meet any of the criteria set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).”

WHAT? REALLY? The decision likely doesn’t meet the court’s publication criteria because it actually benefits the Homeowner, not the Bank for a change!! Apparently Homeowners fighting foreclosure and hostile courts must also fight judicial CENSORSHIP if they prevail, in addition to the other abuses and injustices they confront at every judicial juncture.

Unfortunately, this is one more attempt to silence victims of fraudulent foreclosure and the attorneys who defend them. The Guliex case is important because the court actually complies with the rule of law it established in its own jurisdiction.

Common sense decisions regarding wrongful foreclosure are infrequent and typically eroded or overturned. Yvanova, one of the finest decisions on the importance of standing, was decimated by the Saterbak ruling. A favorable precedent that adheres to the rule of law must be allowed to stand. We must be vigilant and our voices united.

Please write a simple letter, or copy the template below and mail it TODAY requesting that the court publish the Guliex decision. The request for publication should not exceed 2 pages.

(Hat tip to Charles Cox for composing the content of this letter). Please edit as desired.

Fifth District Court of Appeal
Request for Publication, Case No. F073142
Attn: Honorable Brad Hill, Presiding Justice
2424 Ventura Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Subject: Request for Publication

Guliex v PennyMac Holdings LLC

Court of Appeal No F073142 filed July 12, 2017

Opinion cited as 2017 Cal App Unpub Lexis 4742

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION

Dear Justices of the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal,

Pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.1120(a) et seq., I am writing to respectfully and timely request certification for publication of the Court’s entire Opinion, or in the alternative, partial publication of Parts I. et seq. and II.B., for the case captioned above.

My interest in this request relates to the engineered attacks upon home ownership by unauthorized intermediaries engaged in self-help that is California’s non-judicial foreclosure process; and the application, interpretation, clarification and addressing of the facts in this instant case by the Appellate Court and its distinguishing other holdings involving legal issues of continuing public interest as well as clarification of certain specifics related to this field of litigation as the Opinion(s) may apply to other cases more readily once published.

The Opinion meets the standard for publication as authorized by CRC, Rule 8.1105(c) which provides that an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division-whether it affirms or reverses a trial court order or judgment-should be certified for publication in the Official Reports if the opinion:

(1) Establishes a new rule of law;

(2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions;

(3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law;

(4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule;

(5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest;

(7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law;

(8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or

(9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law.

I contend the Court’s well-reasoned Opinion contained therein accordingly satisfy sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as referenced above more specifically related to Sections I. sub-sections B, C, and D.

Section I.B. The Opinion clarifies that a homeowner “…has standing to challenge a foreclosure by an unauthorized entity.” Further, the Opinion clarifies that although a superior court may take judicial notice of documents that have been publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office, the “disputed or disputable” factual content of recorded documents is inadmissible hearsay. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(2, 3, 5, 6 and 8).

Section I.C. The Opinion establishes a new rule on the analysis of a chain-of-title as reflected documents publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office; as well as the analysis of each link in the chain-of-title as to whether a document can establish an unbroken or perfect link in the chain. The Opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 6 and 8).

Section I. D. The Opinion establishes a new rule by distinguishing the two illegal types of wrongful foreclosures: procedural irregularities v. unauthorized foreclosure. This is an important opinion for these cases not previously popularized by other opinions clarifying the question of whether and/or when a homeowner must allege tender and/or prejudice. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Court publish the above referenced Opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

We encourage readers to post copies of the letters mailed to the court in the comments section of this post. Just to keep the courts honest!

Thank you to California Attorney Charles Marshall, Eva Sutton and Celia Salazar for their efforts to publish this important opinion.

Over 1 Billion pounds of nuclear waste “will be dumped into sea” WTF???

Fury at Fukushima: Over 1 Billion pounds of nuclear waste “will be dumped into sea” — Top Official: “The decision has already been made” — “The solution is to pour the radioactive liquid into the ocean” — Toxic radioactive water to cause devastation

 
Published: July 16th, 2017 at 6:15 pm ET
By

2,855 comments


(Above:  An employee walks past storage tanks for contaminated water at the tsunami-crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, in February. Tepco needs to release the water — which contains radioactive tritium that is not removable but considered not harmful in small amounts — into the Pacific Ocean, Chairman Takashi Kawamura said. | TOMOHIRO OHSUMI / POOL PHOTO / VIA AP, FILE)

Kyodo, Jul 14, 2017 (emphasis added): Fukushima’s tritiated water to be dumped into sea, Tepco chief says — Despite the objections of local fishermen, the tritium-tainted water stored at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant will be dumped into the sea, a top official at Tokyo Electric says. “The decision has already been made,” Takashi Kawamura, chairman of Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., said in a recent interview with the media… As of July 6, about 777,000 tons were stored [1.54 billion pounds]… Kawamura’s remarks are the first by the utility’s management on the sensitive matter…

(Above:  The sea wall failure was most striking at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant AFP/Getty)

The Independent, Jul 15, 2017: Radioactive waste from Fukushima power plant disaster to be dumped in sea — Water tainted with tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, is to be released into the Pacific Ocean, says the head of the company responsible for the Fukushima clean-up operation… Local residents are furious at plans to release the radioactive tritium from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant, which suffered a triple meltdown, into the sea…

(Above:  Tokyo Electro Power Co.announced plans to pour radioactive tritium into the Pacific Ocean, a move that is angering locals. File Photo by Keizo Mori/UPI | License Photo)

UPI, Jul 14, 2017: Japan utility plans to dump radioactive Fukushima water into Pacific — The operator of Japan’s paralyzed nuclear plant in Fukushima has decided to release radioactive tritium into the Pacific Ocean… Technology has so far been unable to remove tritium from the water, and TEPCO’s solution is to pour the radioactive liquid into the ocean… TEPCO insists tritium poses few health hazards, but Japanese fishermen are outraged because of the announcement…

(Above:  A member of the media uses a Geiger counter at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima, Japan, February 23, 2017. The site includes hundreds of tanks containing about 777,000 tons of water laced with tritium that TEPCO has decided to dump into the nearby sea, despite opposition from local fishermen.)

Newsweek, Jul 14, 2017: Fukushima’s Nuclear Waste Will Be Dumped Into the Ocean, Japanese Plant Owner Says — Toxic waste produced by one of the world’s worst nuclear disasters will be dumped into the sea, according to the head of [TEPCO]… Takashi Kawamura, chairman of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), told foreign media that nearly 777,000 tons of water tainted with tritium, a byproduct of the nuclear process that is notoriously difficult to filter out of water, will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean

The Telegraph, Jul 14, 2017: Fishermen express fury as Fukushima plant set to release radioactive material into ocean — Local residents and environmental groups have condemned a plan to release radioactive tritium from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean… Around 770,000 tons of highly radioactive water is being stored in 580 tanks at the site. Many of the contaminants can be filtered out, but the technology does not presently exist to remove tritium from water… Fishermen who operate in waters off the plant say any release of radioactive material will devastate an industry that is still struggling to recover from the initial nuclear disaster…

(Above:  The Fukushima No. 1 plant and hundreds of tanks containing tritiated water are viewed from the air in February. | KYODO)

Kyodo, Jul 15, 2017: Tepco backpedals after disaster reconstruction chief knocks plan to dump tritiated water into sea — [Tepco] backed off its tritium-dumping decision Friday after disaster reconstruction minister Masayoshi Yoshino said it would cause problems for struggling fishermen… The remarks made Friday by the Fukushima native came shortly after the chairman of [Tepco] was quoted as saying that the decision… had “already been made.” After Tepco Chairman Takashi Kawamura’s remarks were widely reported, the utility scrambled to make a clarification the same day. According to Tepco’s clarification, Kawamura meant to say that there was “no problem” with the dumping plan, based on government guidelines and “scientific and technological standards.” The statement also said that no final decision had been made…

See also: Experts: Japan “wants to just drop tanks” of Fukushima nuclear waste into ocean — Americans worried over plumes hitting West Coast (VIDEO)

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion For Emergency Public Hearing On Votgle Units 3 & 4

BEFORE THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STATE OF GEORGIA
)
In Re: )
Review of Georgia Power Company’s ) Dockets No. 27800 & 29849
Certificate of Public Convenience and )
Necessity for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 )

NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH MANDAMUS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PUBLIC HEARING ON VOGTLE 3 & 4

Nuclear Watch South files this mandamus motion and complaint that the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) has failed to respond to Nuclear Watch South Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 in accordance with laws governing the PSC.

I. Background

Nuclear Watch South filed on April 18, 2017, a request for an emergency public hearing to hear substantial issues surrounding the bankruptcies of Georgia Power’s Vogtle construction consortium partners which affect the public and to establish a schedule for public review of Georgia Power’s Vogtle 3 & 4 expansion under construction in Burke County. When the PSC failed to respond within 30 days, Nuclear Watch South filed on May 19, 2017, its Motion to Compel a Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4.

Nuclear Watch South’s legal petition to the PSC seeks a process for the public to address, among other issues, many hundreds of millions of public dollars that have been, and are being, collected and deposited as profit for Georgia Power’s shareholders without any meaningful action from the PSC over the past six months while Georgia Power’s Vogtle 3 & 4 consortium partners are mired in bankruptcy courts.

Nuclear Watch South’s request asked that the PSC establish a deadline for Georgia Power to submit, at minimum:
1) The complete and true construction schedule for Vogtle 3 & 4

1

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4

2) The cost to complete Vogtle 3 & 4 construction

3) The cost to cancel Vogtle 3 & 4 construction

II. The Public Service Commission has failed in its legal obligation to respond to a legitimate public request in a specified timeframe.
More than 60 days have elapsed without a response to Nuclear Watch South’s request from the PSC, with one exception: on May 25, 2017, PSC staff attorney Jeffrey Stair sent Nuclear Watch South representative Glenn Carroll an e-mail stating: “It is Staff’s intent to place these items on a future regularly scheduled Energy Committee meeting agenda for Commission consideration.”1

The Commission’s inadequate response to Nuclear Watch South’s request places it in noncompliance with its legal obligation to make a proper response to a legitimate request in a timely fashion as required by Georgia PSC Rule 515-2-1.05 which states: “All applications, petitions or complaints filed with the Commission, or actions initiated by the Commission, on Friday prior to the second Tuesday in each month shall, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, be assigned for hearing on the fourth Tuesday or some succeeding date, and likewise those filed or commenced subsequent to the Friday preceding the second Tuesday in the month and not later than Friday prior to the fourth Tuesday shall, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, be assigned for hearing on the second Tuesday in the following month, or some succeeding date.” [emphasis supplied]

To be in compliance, the PSC should have placed Nuclear Watch South’s request on the calendar

1 The entire text of May 25, 2017 e-mail from Jeff Stair to Glenn Carroll: Ms. Carroll:
The Georgia Public Service Commission Staff has received and reviewed Nuclear Watch South’s Request
for Emergency Hearing as well as Nuclear Watch South’s Motion to Compel a Response. It is Staff’s intent to place these items on a future regularly scheduled Energy Committee meeting agenda for Commission consideration.
As you are aware, Staff and its consultants are continuing their comprehensive review of Plant Vogtle Units
3 and 4, as well as preparing testimony to be offered in the upcoming Vogtle Construction Monitoring proceeding. Also, Georgia Power Company has not yet filed its revised cost and schedule estimates for Units 3 and 4, nor has the Company indicated what type of filing it may ultimately make at the Commission. Once the Company provides its updated projections, Staff and Intervenors will be in a better position to respond, as may be appropriate.
I will be sure to give you sufficient advance notice of when Nuclear Watch South’s Request will be considered at an Energy Committee meeting.
[signed] Jeff Stair

2

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 on May 9, 2017, or established an specific alternative date. Staff attorney’s reference in his May 25, 2017 e-mail to the open-ended, semi-annual Vogtle construction review process and assertion that “Georgia Power Company has not yet filed its revised cost and schedule estimates for Units
3 and 4, nor has the Company indicated what type of filing it may ultimately make at the Commission,” do not satisfy the PSC’s legal obligation to make a specific response to Nuclear Watch South’s request for an emergency public hearing. As a matter of point, the particular excuse that Georgia Power hasn’t made a move yet is precisely the problem Nuclear Watch South seeks relief from via an emergency public hearing.

In the May 11, 2017, 16th Vogtle Construction Monitoring Review (VCM) hearing before the PSC, Georgia Power testified that it would probably file its analysis of the path forward in June. A June date would, indeed, satisfy the spirit of Nuclear Watch South’s request which suggests a June 30, 2017, deadline in its 4/18/17 Request for Emergency Public Hearing.

However, at the June 1, 2017, PSC Energy Committee meeting, Commissioner Lauren “Bubba” McDonald offered a motion for Georgia Power to voluntarily cease CWIP collection and use the traditional AFUDC (Allowance for Funds Used During Construction) mechanism to recover its costs in the rates when the project is complete. While Nuclear Watch South has stated its appreciation for Commissioner McDonald’s initiative, the motion, and the meeting, fail to address the central question of a timely and direct response to Nuclear Watch South’s request for an emergency public hearing as required by law. Significantly, at the June 1, 2017, meeting Georgia Power’s attorney Kevin Greene revealed in verbal exchange with Commissioner Stan Wise, that Georgia Power would not supply the requested information about costs and schedule on Vogtle 3 & 4 in June and anticipates submitting plans in August 2017, or later. Greene’s statement validated press reports about Southern Company CEO statements before the May 24, 2017, Southern Company annual shareholder meeting: “Fanning said Wednesday he now hopes to have that evaluation completed in August or ‘late summer.’”2

2 Southern Co. CEO: Time needed for new Vogtle plan, by Matt Kempner, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 25, 2017 http://www.myajc.com/business/southern-ceo-more-time-needed-for-new-vogtle- plan/5tKTIa1WpXKx95F5qPyWeL/

3

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 At the PSC’s Administrative Affairs meeting on June 6, 2017, the Commission voted to indefinitely delay a decision on Commissioner McDonald’s motion pending further study. Nuclear Watch South’s request was still not on the agenda. The PSC stated concern about breaking the law if it passes a symbolic motion asking for Georgia Power to voluntarily cease collection of the Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery tariff enabled by the Georgia legislature in the 2009 Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act. It is seeking input from the State of Georgia Attorney General, but did not establish a time frame to do so.

PSC meetings on June 15, 2017, also failed to include Nuclear Watch South’s request on the agenda.

The total effect of the PSC’s inaction is that, so far, Georgia Power has, de facto, set the agenda and the schedule for the Georgia Public Service Commission’s response (or lack thereof) to not only Nuclear Watch South’s request, but to the entire circumstance clouding the future construction of Vogtle 3 & 4. To let this situation persist is an egregious lapse of PSC oversight protection for the people of Georgia who are captive customers to Georgia Power’s profitable monopoly and who are paying almost $50 million per month for continued construction at Vogtle 3 & 4.

The situation forces Nuclear Watch South to point out via this Mandamus Motion, that the PSC’s inaction places the PSC in flagrant violation of Georgia PSC Rule 15-2-1.05 which regulates the PSC’s response to the public and establishes a standard for timely response to a legitimate request.

III. The Public Service Commission has broad legal powers which authorize it to protect public interests and processes Nuclear Watch South has repeatedly cited the laws which empower the PSC to decertify3 Vogtle 3 Georgia Code O.C.G.A. § 46-3A-6: Upon application of a utility or upon its own motion, the commission may reexamine any certificate granted under this chapter to determine whether new forecasts of future requirements require the modification of the construction, purchase, sale, or expenditure for a certificated capacity resource. If upon such reexamination the commission finds that the certificated capacity resource is no longer needed or that

4

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 3 & 4 (which it should do because Nuclear Watch South has proven since 2013 using Georgia Power’s own SEC-filed annual report data that power from the $18 billion dollar reactors is not needed as Georgia Power is 30% overbuilt in a shrinking energy market) and also to obtain information from the utilities which it regulates, and to establish any processes it needs to get information (including to grant Nuclear Watch South’s Request for Emergency Public Hearing or to establish another mechanism to bring transparency and public input to the Vogtle question such as a facilitated stakeholder meeting).

O.C.G.A. 46-2-20 (f) and (g) empowers the PSC in the current instance (in which Georgia Power has refused to make important information available to the PSC for six months) to raid the company’s offices if necessary to get the information it needs.4

O.C.G.A. § 46-2-20 (b) is the basic law empowering the PSC to establish any process it needs to get at the truth and the law pursuant of which Nuclear Watch South makes its Request for Emergency Public Hearing.5

IV. The Public Service Commission must exercise its powers for the protection of both the public and Georgia Power As stated above, and repeatedly, in every forum offered by the PSC, Georgia Power is overbuilt any additional certificated capacity resource is needed to assure a reliable supply of electric power and energy for the utility’s Georgia retail customers, the commission may modify or revoke the certificate. If the utility cancels, abandons, or increases some or all of the capacity resource as a result of such modification or revocation of the certificate, it may recover through any rate-making vehicle over a reasonable period of time, absent fraud, concealment, failure to disclose a material fact, imprudence, or criminal misconduct, the amount of its investment in such capacity resource, along with the cost of carrying the unamortized portion of that investment, net of actual salvage value, to the extent such investment is verified as made pursuant to the certificate. The commission shall disallow such investment and costs resulting from fraud, concealment, failure to disclose a material fact, imprudence, or criminal misconduct. [emphasis added] 4 O.C.G.A.
§ 46-2-20 (f) The commission shall also have the power and authority to examine all books, contracts, records, papers, and documents of any person subject to its supervision and to compel the production thereof.
(g) The commission shall have the power, through any of its members, at its discretion, to make personal visits to the offices and places of business of the companies under its supervision for the purpose of examination. Any Commissioner making a personal visit pursuant to this subsection shall have full power and authority to examine the agents and employees of any such company, under oath or otherwise, in order to procure information deemed by the Commissioner necessary to the work of the commission or of value to the public.
5 O.C.G.A. § 46-2-20 (b) The commission may hear complaints; in addition, it is also authorized to perform the duties imposed upon it of its own initiative.

5

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 while enduring a protracted, national downturn in electric sales, i.e., power from Vogtle 3 & 4 is not necessary and does not meet the “public convenience” test. Every day that the decision to stop constructing Plant Vogtle is delayed is costly to the consumers the PSC is supposed to protect. Georgia Power cannot lead with the decision to decertify Vogtle construction because, among other reasons, a primary consideration for the company is the fact that they, and only they, among the Vogtle construction consortium, are making a good profit from the mismanaged nuclear construction project.

Figure 1: Georgia Power Profits 2006-2016
But, in fact, Georgia Power also needs for the PSC to initiate decertification in order to clear the way for the company to recover its sunk costs, an important point of O.C.G.A. § 46-3A-6 which states: “If the utility cancels, abandons, or increases some or all of the capacity resource as a

6

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 result of such [PSC initiated] modification or revocation of the certificate, it may recover through any rate-making vehicle over a reasonable period of time, absent fraud, concealment, failure to disclose a material fact, imprudence, or criminal misconduct, the amount of its investment in
such capacity resource, along with the cost of carrying the unamortized portion of that investment, net of actual salvage value, to the extent such investment is verified as made pursuant to the certificate.” Id. Annotated.

V. Conclusion
Nearly six months have elapsed since Toshiba’s December 27, 2016, revelation of billions of dollars in losses from its U.S. nuclear projects, including Vogtle, a mere five days after the PSC’s notorious $2 billion Christmas gift to Georgia Power on December 22, 2016. 6

During that time, Westinghouse has entered bankruptcy, Toshiba is rumored to be planning bankruptcy, and construction partner CB&I is being accused of falsifying information in the merger with Westinghouse that were terms of the settlement in which Georgia Power accepted almost $2 billion in cost overruns, the same overruns which the PSC approved five days before the shocking Toshiba announcement. We ask, “Is this any way to build a nuclear plant??”

But the public has not been given a seat at the negotiating table even though it is our money that has been invested and lost on the unneeded nuclear project. During this protracted period of financial unraveling, Georgians have transferred $250 million from their pockets to Georgia Power’s bankroll which Georgia Power has then plowed back into the unneeded radioactive waste manufacturing facility less than half-built on the banks of the Savannah River.

Indeed, the argument to cancel Vogtle grows stronger with each passing day (and the seemingly infinite construction delays continue to accrue at the rate of one day for every single day of construction). The 16th Semiannual Vogtle Construction Monitoring Review (VCMR) currently underway at the PSC has contributed significant new insights. In testimony filed June 8, 2017, 6 How Georgia officials pantsed you over the holidays, by Matt Kempner, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 6, 2017 http://www.myajc.com/business/kempner-how-georgia-officials-pantsed-you-over-the- holidays/kKdADfa9OhQqqcscxu5CQK/

7

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 economic expert Philip Hayet testifies that Vogtle 3 & 4 are no longer economic to complete. Vogtle construction monitors Steven Roetger and Dr. William Jacobs filed, at the same time, testimony highlighting ongoing extreme delays of over 300 days which occurred in 2016 on several critical paths and redacted information concerning idle workers.

Even so, participation in the 16th VCMR has been unsatisfying to date for public witnesses, who, unlike the rich monopoly Georgia Power (which the PSC regulates), are rudely interrupted and shut down if their remarks exceed three minutes. Public witnesses, ordinary citizens who take time off work to come to obscure, poorly noticed, PSC hearings, often suffer hostile challenges to their testimony and written comments from the Commissioners. The current Public Service Commission has established a new low standard in its lack of sensitivity to the public it serves as the largest boondoggle in construction history since the Biblical Tower of Babel continues to drain public money while the PSC fiddles around and does nothing.

The Christian minister who gave the devotion prior to the June 6, 2017, PSC administrative session told an illuminating story about Nero, the infamous Roman emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned.” He testified that Nero needed to burn some buildings in order to conduct his own building program, but the fire got out of hand and burned most of Rome. The story of Rome burning is a rich metaphor for the bungled Vogtle project which is enriching a powerful monopoly, Georgia Power, while impoverishing Georgia citizens. Indeed, Georgia Power burns our hard-earned money on an unnecessary construction project, while the PSC takes a nap or “phones it in” not even showing up for the few important public hearings about Vogtle 3 & 4.

Nuclear Watch South is backed by many Georgia laws cited above in its demand for an effective public process to bring the public’s interest to the table to address the Vogtle situation.

This Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4 underlines the serious legal requirement for the Commission to take immediate action to establish a process and a timeframe for Georgia Power to submit information and an emergency public hearing to decide the issues outlined above.

8

Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to
Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4
Respectfully submitted,

_/s/_

Glenn Carroll
Nuclear Watch South

Nuclear Watch South
P.O. Box 8574
Atlanta, Georgia 31106
atom.girl@nonukesyall.org
404-378-4263

9
Nuclear Watch South Mandamus Motion to Compel Response to
Request for Emergency Public Hearing on Vogtle 3 & 4

$31 million in donations, over 90% of which came from California liberals and others outside Georgia, including Soros groups.

Jon Ossoff Loses in Georgia, Karen Handel Wins the House Seat
By S. Noble – June 20, 20171
https://www.independentsentinel.com/jon-ossoff-loses-georgia-karen-handel-wins-house-seat/


Jon Ossoff, Pajama Boy

Karen Handel, the Republican candidate, has won the Georgia House seat in what was the most expensive House race in U.S. history.

Newt Gingrich’s old seat, formerly held by HHS Secretary Tom Price, was up for grabs in today’s special election runoff. Democrat Progressives tried to win the seat to make it a referendum against President Trump.

Georgia’s suburban Atlanta district has been a Republican stronghold for 40 years. It was supposed to be the Democrats’ big success story.


Karen Handel
Before today’s runoff, Ossoff said his near-victory two months ago was “historic”. He called it a “victory for the ages.”

Handel won handily, six points ahead of her opponent.

The pollsters claimed Ossoff was 7 points ahead until recently when they said he was only 2 points ahead. Internal poll numbers showed Handel winning.

Democrats also lost in South Carolina, but that was a given. Democrats are 0 for 5 in special elections.

California lost the election in Georgia

This was the single most expensive House election.

Ossoff, who doesn’t live in the district, had received between $23 million and $31 million in donations, over 90% of which came from California liberals and others outside Georgia, including Soros groups. That is according to one Fox News report. Numbers vary and not all the money was spent. Some estimates, however, say as much as $60 million was spent overall. The NY Times reported $55 million.

Republicans began pouring money into Handel’s campaign to offset Ossoff’s donations. She ended up with about $4.5 million in the final days according to The NY Times.

Handel received half her donations from outside the district. Earlier we reported she had $23 million at her disposal based on a Fox report but The NY Times reported $4.5 million. That would make her win ever more amazing.

Ossoff pontificating

Ossoff can be heard in the video below crowing after his near-victory, the “victory for the ages”. He said he “defied the odds”, “shattered expectations”, and “we have challenged the world”.

Laughably, he complained about Republican “dark money”. He’s the man who took somewhere between 90% and 95% of his funding from California while running in Georgia.